On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 21:06, Philip Olson <phi...@roshambo.org> wrote: > > On May 25, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Hannes Magnusson wrote: > >> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 19:23, Philip Olson <phi...@php.net> wrote: >>> philip Sat, 22 May 2010 17:23:13 +0000 >>> + <refsect1 role="changelog"> >>> + &reftitle.changelog; >>> + <informaltable> >>> + <tgroup cols="2"> >>> + <thead> >>> + <row> >>> + <entry>&Version;</entry> >>> + <entry>&Description;</entry> >>> + </row> >>> + </thead> >>> + <tbody> >>> + <row> >>> + <entry>&version.trunk.changelog;</entry> >>> + <entry> >>> + The <parameter>alpha</parameter> parameter was added. >> >> >> "Future" doesn't sound that good. >> >> Imaging the following table: >> >> Future | $foo was added >> 5.2.1 | $foobar was added >> >> Whattaheck is future? It at least has to be a link to the about version page. > > This is why the other entity exists, which explains it and links to the > about.phpversions page. Adding a long entry as the changelog version feels > wrong, but are you are proposing version.trunk.after.53 instead live within > the changelog description entry? That could work. I'm still paranoid, but it > is indeed closer to how we do changelogs currently. >
No.. Our current changelogs are <tr><td>version</td><td>foobar was added</td></tr> I want <tr><td><a href="about.versions.php">PHP trunk</a></td><td>foobar was added</td></tr> No don't however see the need with long repeated textual descriptions with a link to about.versions.php. -Hannes
