On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:44:18 -0500, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 2/17/2013 6:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Let me give you some examples of "new features"
std.array.replace compile error (string and immutable string)
There's no Duration.max
Document extern properly
etc.
Compare the earlier changelogs with the bugzilla entries.
It's EXACTLY THE SAME TEXT.
EXACTLY.
No. We have quite a few messages that were not "bug reports" in prior
releases. These messages have no corresponding bugzilla entry. These
were truly useful descriptions. The bug reports were few, and yes, there
were a few instances like the ones I gave (I saw "relax inout rules" which
is terrible as a description).
for example:
* std.array.insert has been deprecated. Please use
std.array.insertInPlace instead.
* Major overhaul of std.regex module's implementation. Breaking change in
std.regex.replace with delegate, use Captures!string instead of
RegexMatch!string as delegate parameter.
The latest versions have almost none of those useful descriptions. They
are almost exclusively of the cryptic
you-have-to-click-on-me-to-understand-what-I-mean type.
Even if there are past examples of poor descriptions for the changelog,
that is not not an excuse to make them all bugzilla reports.
A good first step would be to examine the bugzilla reports that will be
listed as "new features" (should be easy since it's a report that's
already being used by the web site), and change the descriptions to real
useful enhancement descriptions before the release. But I think the
release needs a hard copy of these descriptions.
I understand many people do not like the change to the changelog - but I
ask for a reason that make sense. I keep hearing that the text is
different, but that is simply not so. It's the same exact information.
Even the categories are the same.
I did a search for the above two examples in bugzilla, and I found
nothing. Clearly, this is not the exact same information.
Also, anyone can go in and change the bugzilla issue titles to make them
more readable.
That actually is not a good thing... Anyone can maliciously affect the
changlog, or alter the changelog at some later point because they wanted
to 'reopen' a bug.
-Steve
