D 1.076 and 2.061 release

[Walter Bright]

On 1/4/2013 6:02 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Walter Bright, el  3 de January a las 23:03 me escribiste:
>> On 1/3/2013 9:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> but other lines like
>>>
>>> $(LI std.string: $(RED The implementations of std.string.format and
>>> string.sformat have been replaced with improved implementations which conform
>>> to writef. In some, rare cases, this will break code. Please see the
>>> documentation for std.string.format and std.string.sformat for details.))
>>
>> Yes, you can put this in as the bugzilla title, though I'd tighten it up a little.
>
> Are you being serious? Do you really think this would be useful for the
> user?  That the user will be able to spot that particular comment among
> hundreds of bugs in a bugzilla search query result?

It's not hundreds. It's the new/changed list, which is rather short. It was a 
little longer this time because it's been several months. Usually, it's just a 
handful.


> Is really that hard to acknowledge that release notes are better than
> doing that? I can understand if you see problems on keeping up to date
> the release notes, but I can't believe that anyone can think is plain
> better to user bugzilla instead (for the user POV at least).
>
> Can we at least agree on that and then see if is feasible to have good
> and up to date release notes?

But we've done that before. It was not working.


> I understand that, but I don't think that work should be optional and
> only done if somebody feels like. Every pull request should include
> proper documentation update. Can we try to focus on that for the next
> release?

We are all volunteers. You are welcome to help out with this.