Le 31/12/2010 10:52, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 02:30, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
>> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> 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"
>>>> (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
> 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.
In response to
pgadmin-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Guillaume Lelarge||Date: 2010-12-31 14:07:15|
|Subject: Re: Support for unlogged tables|
|Previous:||From: Guillaume Lelarge||Date: 2010-12-31 13:58:12|
|Subject: Re: code.pgadmin.org|