moving away from changelog.dd?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday, December 23, 2012 22:48:47 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/23/12 10:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > So, I fully support doing something to automate the portion of the
> > changelog which contains all of the bugzilla entries, but the portion
> > above that where non-bugzilla stuff is entered still needs to be there.
> > We can handle it in some way other than changelog.dd if we want to, but
> > we still need a way to enter stuff into the changelog by hand.
> 
> Some other way may as well be introduce entries in bugzilla. Again,
> dealing with the changelog has become more costly than beneficial.

It's costly because of bugzilla. If you automate that part, then I think we're 
fine. But i don't think that it makes any sense whatsoever to put the non-
bugzilla stuff in bugzilla. For instance, take this line from the top of the 
2.060 changelog:

$(LI std.string: $(RED The current implementations of std.string.format and 
string.sformat are scheduled to be replaced in November 2012 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.))

How would you do that with a bugzilla entry? Try and create a bug with that 
title? Even assuming that bugzilla allows you to create a bug with a title 
that long, it'll then be buried among all of the bug fixes and have a pointless 
bug# on it, when it specifically needed to be put at the top.

I really think that the WHATSNEW section needs to stay as it is, and I don't 
think that it's really all that big a deal to maintain it. It would be to 
automate the LIBBUGSFIXED section, but I don't think that it should be mixed 
in with the WHATSNEW section, and the WHATSNEW section is very ill-suited to 
being put in bugzilla.

- Jonathan m Davis