D 2.062 release

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:44:18 -0800
Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 2/17/2013 6:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > Let me give you some examples of "new features"
> >
> > std.array.replace compile error (string and immutable string)
> > There's no Duration.max
> > Document extern properly
> > etc.
> 
> Compare the earlier changelogs with the bugzilla entries.
> 
> It's EXACTLY THE SAME TEXT.
> 
> EXACTLY.
> 

No it isn't.

First of all, it's now split across four separate pages. Five if you
count the page that doesn't actually contain any real information
besides the four links.

Secondly, the new format contains loads of superfluous data. Did the
old changelog page dedicate over 1/3 of the page to rows and rows
and rows of "nor P2 All No Owner RESO FIXE", none of wehich belongs in
a changelog? No it didn't. Definitely NOT the "exact same text".

Third, the old changelog's formatting was overall jsut far more
readable.

Fourth, as people said, the wording in the old changelog was much more
appropriate for a changelog. Yea, people can update the titles of the
zilla entries: Thus making them *very strangely* worded for archived
bug reports. But does that actually happen? No (And I'm unconviunced
that it even should). Did changelog-appropriate wording happen with
the old changelog? Yes.

DO you really think that so many people would be so annoyed with the
new format if there *weren't* real problems with it?