On 04/03/12 22:09, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 04/03/2012 15:07, Chad J wrote:
The D changelog shows that version 2.059 was released on the 16 of
Feb. I doubt it. There
is a broken download link for v2.059. There are no
bugfixes/enhancements/etc.
IIRC the top version is a placeholder for features/enhancements that
will be in the next
release. If that's the case, it should SAY so, and there should be no
download link for
the presently non-existent release.
And moreover, there shouldn't be a release date unless release has
actually been scheduled for that date.
Why the placeholder anyway? If no changes for the version have yet been
written, the section shouldn't be there. If the point is to be a preview
of what we will see in the next release, it should be formatted as such,
with a heading such as "Coming in Version 2.059" and each subheading
left until there's actually something in it.
I can't see that the point is to make it quicker to add entries and to
update the page to reflect the fact of release when it happens. It only
takes a second or two to delete <!-- --> once there is something to put
in the section.
Actually this is a release process issue.
The problem is that those pages are visible at all. Nobody should see
that, unless they pulled the docs from git.
That's not the docs for the current release, it's the docs for the next
one. It's not just the changelog.
