Fixed.

On 4/2/2012 9:10 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> "ddemangle" for Mac OS X, Linux and FreeBSD and "shell" for FreeBSD don't have executable permission. 
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

I'm replying this with delay as I'm working out of my email debt.

Nick, what we usually do is each contributor takes care of the changelog when fixing an error. Could you please insert a line for each of these in next version's changelog (possibly with a note that they've been fixed a release ago)?


Thanks,

Andrei

On 4/5/12 5:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> This should probably be mentioned in the changelog:
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/tools/pull/25
>
> And maybe the fact that --eval's import list has been updated as part of
> this:
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/tools/pull/24
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 22 May 2012, at 18:58, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Nick, what we usually do is each contributor takes care of the changelog when fixing an error. Could you please insert a line for each of these in next version's changelog (possibly with a note that they've been fixed a release ago)?

Well, ideally yes – but on the other hand, changelog entries are usually left out of pull requests to avoid merging errors.

This issue has already been raised and discussed multiple times. Maybe we can finally find a clever way to keep the changelog separately, but still tied to version control. An idea that pops to my mind would be a simple table (e.g. in the form of a tiny web app) where people can post changelog messages along with a Git commit hash. When preparing the release, a script is run to query the list for all new commit IDs. If a matching messages is found, it is added to the changelog, otherwise a »changelog entry missing« warning is printed for that commit.

Hm, on the second thought, it might be much more safe and less work to just stick the changelog entries in the commit messages (in some agreed-on format, e.g. a DDoc-like »Changelog:« section), and simply accumulate them with a little script when preparing the release. Again, commits not including a message could conveniently be listed for manual inspection. This would eliminate all the problems with the current solution, and make compiling the changelog much less time consuming as well.

David
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 22.05.2012 21:12, David Nadlinger wrote:
>
> Hm, on the second thought, it might be much more safe and less work to just stick the changelog entries in the commit messages (in some agreed-on format, e.g. a DDoc-like »Changelog:« section), and simply accumulate them with a little script when preparing the release. Again, commits not including a message could conveniently be listed for manual inspection. This would eliminate all the problems with the current solution, and make compiling the changelog much less time consuming as well.

+11


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta