Hi Bernd, > Well yes it´s a rather simple algorithm and well normally your > expectation would be right that in this case the text from the first > paragraph of the abstract would be used. But well here it´s special. The > spec document has been changed in a way that the abstract can not be > extracted anymore because ...
Okay, but in general re-using specifications (which IMO makes a lot of sense) means the generated release notes are wrong, correct? Looking into the allfeatures mailing list (did I already say "kudos to you" for working around collab.net's bug, so this list now works, again?), of the last 10 feature mails, 8 contained a specification link, where 5 referred to older-and-extended specs (including the broken one). Means that half of the auto-generated release notes is wrong. Hmm, we should improve on this. I suppose that *first* using the mail, *then* using the spec, as already suggested here, could help. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
