I'll chime in here as well, seeing as how SC is my baby. Posting what's changed 
in a script update is really up to the script author, and is not something that 
should be required. If you don't trust a script because of a lack of update 
information, or are not comfortable installing a script without knowing what's 
new, then don't use it. The open community model that SC provides will control 
the success of a script. If enough people stop using a script because they're 
not being told what it does, or what changes have been made, then the script 
author may need to re-evaluate his or her approach. 

Personally, I try to include at least a small snippet of all the changes I make 
between versions. Not only does it create a constructive dialog with my users 
about what I'm doing (especially for those who are not subscribed to any GW 
email list), it helps me keep track of what I've done. This provides me with a 
sort of development history. It's easy for me to review the changes that have 
been made because I take the time to note them. I also feel that the change 
history is part of script development. To me, a script is not completed when 
the package is created, but instead is completed when the package is made 
available to users with the appropriate information as to why I'm bothing them 
with an update in the first 


-----Original Message----- 
From: "J.J. Meddaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
To: [email protected] 
Date: 09/22/08 22:48 
Subject: Re: New Direct Text package 

I have to agree. Each author has their own way of expressing changes to a 
script.
I'm considering going to an external changelog linked to on my scripts, for 
example.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jared Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: New Direct Text package


> Darrell Shandrow wrote:
> "I'd go so far as to say that a change log or release notes ought to,
> somehow, be required by GW Micro in order to post on SC..."
> Somehow I think this would only drive people away from SC and thus 
> neutralize its SC's usefulness as a whole.
>
>
> JW
>

Reply via email to