Re: Trac tickets
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Trac tickets |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinY59xBeW_pf_fZ=POZxP1dvH2LyXa6fRPPNHGM@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Trac tickets (Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>) |
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:49, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Le 30/12/2010 18:33, Magnus Hagander a écrit : >> 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? >> > > 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/
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: