Re: Trac tickets

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?

> 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/