Re: Trac tickets
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Trac tickets |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTimzfQqrBzkEJ-Jo3fsYN_E1xkBHx-6RD5WW3r7y@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Trac tickets (Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>) |
Ответы |
Re: Trac tickets
|
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:29, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Le 30/12/2010 11:32, Magnus Hagander a écrit : >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:09, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.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@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume >>>>> >>>>> Lelarge<guillaume@lelarge.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? > 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?) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: