On 2012-12-24 05:18, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> They definitely don't fill all of it though. We need to be able to put specific
> messages in the changelog separate from bugzilla entries.

Yeah, we need to put this information manually somewhere anyway. Why not directly into changelog.dd

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 04:48:07 UTC, Kapps wrote:
> On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 04:19:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 23, 2012 23:13:53 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 12/23/12 11:08 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> > It's just the WHATSNEW section that makes no sense to automate.
>>> 
>>> Enhancement requests may fill most of the bill...
>>
>> They definitely don't fill all of it though. We need to be able to put specific
>> messages in the changelog separate from bugzilla entries.
>>
>> I really don't see why it's that big a deal that the WHATSNEW section isn't
>> automated though. It's the LIBBUGSFIXED section that causes all the grief, and
>> that's easily automated.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
>
> Personally I think it nicer that things like What's New would be written out by a human. Instead of just "Enhancement #4713: Add user-defined annotations", you can give a quick explanation of what actually was added and a link to get more info about it. Same for phobos modules and the like.

Would it be a crazy idea to move the page to the wiki, and only pack it back into dmd when it gets packaged?

I'd say the problem with changelog.dd is the effort associated with modifying it, no? On the wiki, it's basically "edit" "write" "commit" "done".

The fact that you have to do an actual pull just to add an entry to a changelog makes something that should be easy as pie a real chore, and work grinds to a halt.

On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 03:51:37 UTC, Bernard Helyer wrote:
> On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 03:48:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
>> Some other way may as well be introduce entries in bugzilla.
>
> Is adding things that don't belong in bugzilla to bugzilla really
> a great idea?

Such as what ?

On 24-12-2012 14:59, SomeDude wrote:
> On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 03:51:37 UTC, Bernard Helyer wrote:
>> On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 03:48:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>> Some other way may as well be introduce entries in bugzilla.
>>
>> Is adding things that don't belong in bugzilla to bugzilla really
>> a great idea?
>
> Such as what ?

Jonathan gave an example with the std.string.format change.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org

On 12/24/12 8:49 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
> Would it be a crazy idea to move the page to the wiki, and only pack it
> back into dmd when it gets packaged?
>
> I'd say the problem with changelog.dd is the effort associated with
> modifying it, no? On the wiki, it's basically "edit" "write" "commit"
> "done".
>
> The fact that you have to do an actual pull just to add an entry to a
> changelog makes something that should be easy as pie a real chore, and
> work grinds to a halt.

That's a nice idea. Is it an issue that anyone can edit that page?

Andrei

On 12/24/12 8:59 AM, SomeDude wrote:
> On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 03:51:37 UTC, Bernard Helyer wrote:
>> On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 03:48:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>> Some other way may as well be introduce entries in bugzilla.
>>
>> Is adding things that don't belong in bugzilla to bugzilla really
>> a great idea?
>
> Such as what ?

Same question - far as I can tell Bugzilla is meant to track all changes to a software product, so I'd be hard pressed to come with something that's not appropriate for it.

Andrei

On Monday, December 24, 2012 11:41:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/24/12 8:59 AM, SomeDude wrote:
> > On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 03:51:37 UTC, Bernard Helyer wrote:
> >> On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 03:48:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>> Some other way may as well be introduce entries in bugzilla.
> >> 
> >> Is adding things that don't belong in bugzilla to bugzilla really a great idea?
> > 
> > Such as what ?
> 
> Same question - far as I can tell Bugzilla is meant to track all changes to a software product, so I'd be hard pressed to come with something that's not appropriate for it.

How about the very example that I gave about specifically providing a note to developers about the impending changes to std.format? No bug had been fixed, and no enhancement request had been implemented. No code change had even taken place yet. It was a note about a future change that developers needed to be made aware of.

And while you _could_ put stuff like the inclusion of a new module in bugzilla, I really don't think that it belongs there. Bugzilla is for bug reports and enhancement requests, not for notes about changes to the code base. You can look at source control for those.

I don't understand why you're so against having notes from human beings in the changelog. Yes, automating the list of bugs would be great, because that list is tedious and error-prone, but I dispute that it buys us anything to try and do the same with the WHATSNEW section. If anything, it makes things worse by trying to shoehorn non-bugs into bug reports.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 12/24/12, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why you're so against having notes from human beings in the changelog.

I don't understand why we can't have both. One is a list automatically added via bugzilla, and then a separate section of handwritten changes.

On Monday, December 24, 2012 18:08:58 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 12/24/12, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand why you're so against having notes from human beings in the changelog.
> 
> I don't understand why we can't have both. One is a list automatically added via bugzilla, and then a separate section of handwritten changes.

Exactly.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Monday, December 24, 2012 14:49:59 monarch_dodra wrote:
> Would it be a crazy idea to move the page to the wiki, and only pack it back into dmd when it gets packaged?
> 
> I'd say the problem with changelog.dd is the effort associated with modifying it, no? On the wiki, it's basically "edit" "write" "commit" "done".
> 
> The fact that you have to do an actual pull just to add an entry to a changelog makes something that should be easy as pie a real chore, and work grinds to a halt.

I thought about that, but I question that it buys us much. The bugzilla portion should be automated. That then only leaves the WHATSNEW section, which has far fewer entries. The wiki also opens us up to stray who-knows-who editing it, which may or may not be a problem. I really don't think that it's all that big a deal to create a pull request for a WHATSNEW section change (it's also the sort of thing which is likely to be pulled quickly), and if those are rare enough, and they relate to a specific pull request (as they often do), then you can simply put the changelog change in that pull request. I generally avoid that because of the risk of merge conflicts with changelog.dd, but if the list of bugzilla changelog items is automated, then the number of items which need to be put into changelog.dd is far lower, and the risk of merge conflicts is significantly reduced.

- Jonathan M Davis