Le 31/12/2010 10:52, Magnus Hagander a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 02:30, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Guillaume Lelarge >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> No to trac reports as they ain't complete now. Dave and I talked about >>> that in Stuttgart, and we decided that quick bugs to fix won't have a >>> trac ticket. We'll only use trac's bugtracker to keep track of unfixed bugs. >>> >>> I would be much more in favor to drop the changelog and use "git log" >>> instead. >>> >>>> (Hint: I hate the changelog file because I keep forgetting to update >>>> it, and it sucks to handle it in the main repo due to how it >>>> integrates with branches) >>>> >>> >>> Can't agree more :) >> >> The CHANGELOG is supposed to be a list of "changes that are >> interesting to the user", ie. the changes that we include in release >> notices etc. Git log includes a ton of extra stuff, and would require >> significant manual filtering at release time to produce the change log >> data. > > Yes, but it requires significant manual filtering *now* to produce it > as well.
Even if I mostly agree with you, significant is a bit too much :) > And it misses stuff (I *know* that I keep forgetting and > don't always pick up on it and fix it later, and I'm pretty sure > others do as well). I'm sure I'm one of the others. I missed several times. > So you'd have to make a pass through all the git > logs *anyway* if you want to keep it up to date. > Well, if we miss one or two things in the CHANGELOG, that's not a big issue. Anyway, you're right that this is what I do for the visual tour. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
