Hi Bernd, >>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. > > Interesting argument.
Let me make it even more interesting. (Side note: There's one new feature mail since some hours ago, which leads to "11 mails, 9 with spec link, 5 referring to old/extended specs".) Of the 4 last postings which contained a link to a newly written spec, the following are the first paragraphs of 2 of them: "The support for regular expressions is extended by “backward references”. "This specification documents changes made to the Calc options dialog." Which adds to: Of the 11 most recent feature announcements, the "take the abstract from the spec"-process will produce wrong or only-slightly-useful descriptions in 7 cases. > Well the *then* using the spec is kind of not really an option. > ... I see. To me this means we should get rid of the spec-abstract thingie. I suggest a feature mail contains a "release note abstracts" field and a "comprehensive description" field. EIS should distinct them both in the UI, when writing a mail. 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]
