Branch: refs/heads/master
Home:   https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd

Commit: 365297878c11039944be5d78d57909564bef70aa
    https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/365297878c11039944be5d78d57909564bef70aa
Author: Walter Bright <walter at walterbright.com>
Date:   2011-06-11 (Sat, 11 Jun 2011)

Changed paths:
  M src/expression.c
  M src/mtype.c
  A test/runnable/assignable.d

Log Message:
-----------
Merge pull request #95 from 9rnsr/check_assignable

Issue 5327 & 2625 struct is assignable if all of fields are assignable

Don't forget the changelog.

Andrei

On 06/11/2011 09:50 PM, noreply at github.com wrote:
> Branch: refs/heads/master
> Home:   https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd
>
> Commit: 365297878c11039944be5d78d57909564bef70aa
>      https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/365297878c11039944be5d78d57909564bef70aa
> Author: Walter Bright<walter at walterbright.com>
> Date:   2011-06-11 (Sat, 11 Jun 2011)
>
> Changed paths:
>    M src/expression.c
>    M src/mtype.c
>    A test/runnable/assignable.d
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Merge pull request #95 from 9rnsr/check_assignable
>
> Issue 5327&  2625 struct is assignable if all of fields are assignable
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On 12 June 2011 05:46, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com> wrote:
> Don't forget the changelog.

The changelog is really a pain, because git merges are so dumb -- it ALWAYS thinks there's a conflict, so you always have to do the changelog manually anyway. Putting it into the pull request actually creates more work.  I wonder if we might be better with something like a wiki page.

> Andrei

I think that could work. We can also prime the wiki from the existing changelog by simply changing a couple of macros.

Walter?

Andrei

On 06/12/2011 02:54 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
> On 12 June 2011 05:46, Andrei Alexandrescu<andrei at erdani.com>  wrote:
>> Don't forget the changelog.
>
> The changelog is really a pain, because git merges are so dumb -- it ALWAYS thinks there's a conflict, so you always have to do the changelog manually anyway. Putting it into the pull request actually creates more work.  I wonder if we might be better with something like a wiki page.
>
>> Andrei
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

Might just be better to have the pull or even commit descriptions have the change log entries to cut/paste.  Otherwise, the wiki or whatever location used isn't in sync with what's actually been pulled.

On 6/12/2011 1:52 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I think that could work. We can also prime the wiki from the existing changelog by simply changing a couple of macros.
> 
> Walter?
> 
> Andrei
> 
> On 06/12/2011 02:54 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
>> On 12 June 2011 05:46, Andrei Alexandrescu<andrei at erdani.com>  wrote:
>>> Don't forget the changelog.
>>
>> The changelog is really a pain, because git merges are so dumb -- it ALWAYS thinks there's a conflict, so you always have to do the changelog manually anyway. Putting it into the pull request actually creates more work.  I wonder if we might be better with something like a wiki page.
>>
>>> Andrei

Yeah, a wiki might be better

On 6/12/2011 1:52 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I think that could work. We can also prime the wiki from the existing changelog by simply changing a couple of macros.
>
> Walter?
>
> Andrei
>
> On 06/12/2011 02:54 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
>> On 12 June 2011 05:46, Andrei Alexandrescu<andrei at erdani.com>  wrote:
>>> Don't forget the changelog.
>>
>> The changelog is really a pain, because git merges are so dumb -- it ALWAYS thinks there's a conflict, so you always have to do the changelog manually anyway. Putting it into the pull request actually creates more work.  I wonder if we might be better with something like a wiki page.
>>
>>> Andrei
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmd-internals mailing list
>> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>
>

On 12 June 2011 22:56, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
> Might just be better to have the pull or even commit descriptions have the change log entries to cut/paste. ?Otherwise, the wiki or whatever location used isn't in sync with what's actually been pulled.

That's pretty much what we have now, and it means that the burden falls entirely on Walter. And the changelog's not critical, it's really something that everyone can safely have access to.

> On 6/12/2011 1:52 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I think that could work. We can also prime the wiki from the existing changelog by simply changing a couple of macros.
>>
>> Walter?
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>> On 06/12/2011 02:54 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
>>> On 12 June 2011 05:46, Andrei Alexandrescu<andrei at erdani.com> ?wrote:
>>>> Don't forget the changelog.
>>>
>>> The changelog is really a pain, because git merges are so dumb -- it ALWAYS thinks there's a conflict, so you always have to do the changelog manually anyway. Putting it into the pull request actually creates more work. ?I wonder if we might be better with something like a wiki page.
>>>
>>>> Andrei
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>

If the entries are in the pulled commits, it's a release time matter of running a git log + grep.  Much less effort than per commit manual work.

On Jun 12, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Don Clugston <dclugston at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 12 June 2011 22:56, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> Might just be better to have the pull or even commit descriptions have the change log entries to cut/paste.  Otherwise, the wiki or whatever location used isn't in sync with what's actually been pulled.
> 
> That's pretty much what we have now, and it means that the burden falls entirely on Walter. And the changelog's not critical, it's really something that everyone can safely have access to.
> 
>> On 6/12/2011 1:52 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> I think that could work. We can also prime the wiki from the existing changelog by simply changing a couple of macros.
>>> 
>>> Walter?
>>> 
>>> Andrei
>>> 
>>> On 06/12/2011 02:54 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
>>>> On 12 June 2011 05:46, Andrei Alexandrescu<andrei at erdani.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Don't forget the changelog.
>>>> 
>>>> The changelog is really a pain, because git merges are so dumb -- it ALWAYS thinks there's a conflict, so you always have to do the changelog manually anyway. Putting it into the pull request actually creates more work.  I wonder if we might be better with something like a wiki page.
>>>> 
>>>>> Andrei
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmd-internals mailing list
>> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On 12 June 2011 23:48, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
> If the entries are in the pulled commits, it's a release time matter of running a git log + grep. ?Much less effort than per commit manual work.

I don't think it can never be fully automated. You have to deal with
reverted commits, for example, and the D1 changelog is particularly
difficult.
(basically because git is far too dumb to be able to merge D2 changes
into D1). Also I have often found that I have unintentionally fixed a
Bugzilla bug with a previous commit, and this does *not* mean that it
was a duplicate.
Personally I have a text file with a list of all of the bugs I plan on
fixing soon, and I move them to the top when I'm done, so I always
have this list anyway.
I do agree that there doesn't seem to be a need to update the
changelog after every commit.

>
> On Jun 12, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Don Clugston <dclugston at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 June 2011 22:56, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>> Might just be better to have the pull or even commit descriptions have the change log entries to cut/paste. ?Otherwise, the wiki or whatever location used isn't in sync with what's actually been pulled.
>>
>> That's pretty much what we have now, and it means that the burden falls entirely on Walter. And the changelog's not critical, it's really something that everyone can safely have access to.
>>
>>> On 6/12/2011 1:52 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> I think that could work. We can also prime the wiki from the existing changelog by simply changing a couple of macros.
>>>>
>>>> Walter?
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>>
>>>> On 06/12/2011 02:54 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
>>>>> On 12 June 2011 05:46, Andrei Alexandrescu<andrei at erdani.com> ?wrote:
>>>>>> Don't forget the changelog.
>>>>>
>>>>> The changelog is really a pain, because git merges are so dumb -- it ALWAYS thinks there's a conflict, so you always have to do the changelog manually anyway. Putting it into the pull request actually creates more work. ?I wonder if we might be better with something like a wiki page.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrei
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dmd-internals mailing list
>>> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
>>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmd-internals mailing list
>> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>