Re: Trac tickets

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:49, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> Le 30/12/2010 18:33, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:29, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>> Le 30/12/2010 11:32, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:09, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>>>> Le vendredi 7 août 2009 à 13:35:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:48, Dave Page<dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lelarge<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 6 août 2009 à 13:10:24, Dave Page a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Why are trac tickets being created for the recent change history?
>>>>>>>>> That's what the changelog and svn history is for...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. I created them to try to use the roadmap system. See this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  http://code.pgadmin.org/trac/roadmap
>>>>>>>> and this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  http://code.pgadmin.org/trac/query?milestone=1.10.1&order=priority&col=
>>>>>>>> id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=compone
>>>>>>>> nt (which is kind of a changelog and a todo list)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, well if you want to start maintaining this, please have a think
>>>>>>> about how we can modify the existing processes to accomodate it. At
>>>>>>> the very least, I would like to avoid the changelog duplication - can
>>>>>>> we drop that file, or auto-create it for example?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we should definitely be able to do that. However, I think we
>>>>>> should do *both* for a while just to fill things with some data, so we
>>>>>> can reasonably compare the outcome. yes, it means duplicated work
>>>>>> during that time, but as long as we have the end-goal to drop one of
>>>>>> the two.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dropping one is not enough. We need to have more. And trac gives us more than
>>>>> just a changelog. So, I agree with Magnus. We should really check that trac
>>>>> works great enough for us before dropping any existing processes.
>>>>
>>>> Here's to bring up a really old thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wait, it's only 17 months old ;)
>>
>> Yeah :-)
>>
>>
>>>> We've run it for a while now. Are we ready to drop the changelog and
>>>> use trac reports instead? Or are we ready to drop the changelog and
>>>> use git log? Or a combination, for different users?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 agree, but what are people mainly looking for in CHANGELOG today do
>> you think? bugfixes or new features?
>>
>
> Nothing. People able to read the CHANGELOG file will probably just use
> "git log" (the only way to be sure to miss nothing, and have much more
> comments).
>
>>> I would be much more in favor to drop the changelog and use "git log"
>>> instead.
>>
>> That's obviously the authoritarian source. If we could just link to
>> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin3.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master
>> (and another link for the stable branch), that would certainly be the
>> easiest.
>>
>> Is that going to be enough, or do we *really* need something
>> user-formatted? (Other than in the release notes, perhaps?)
>>
>
> Well, the CHANGELOG isn't that much formatted. It isn't user oriented
> (can't be translated for example (and to make sure you understand me, I
> don't think it needs to be)).

So, I suggest we just flip the links to point to git and get rid of it then :-)

Dave, you planning to veto that?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/