Re: Trac tickets

Le 30/12/2010 18:33, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:29, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>> Le 30/12/2010 11:32, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:09, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)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(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lelarge<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)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)).

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com