Hans Dieter Pearcey wrote:
Excerpts from David Golden's message of Fri Oct 09 07:55:36 -0400 2009:
31. Version changes
Proposal:
Description of changes in that versions and tags for changes. Useful for
submission to Freshmeat and for quick review of changes. --Chorny 18:51, 30
September 2009 (BST)
This seems like getting people to agree on a machine-readable changelog format,
which appears only slightly more likely than world peace. Am I misreading it?
Apart from my usual complaint about "where does the information come
from?", this seems possible enough if you leave most of it up to the
author: Add a sequence that has a version, an *optional* release date,
and (a possibly optional) free-form field of changes. Personally, I'd
like to go one step further and make the free form field really an array
of free-form fields for individual changes. That offers the opportunity
for opposed authors to use a single one of them as a free-form field for
all changes.
Steffen
