D 1.076 and 2.061 release

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, January 04, 2013 14:13:22 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/3/2013 10:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > P.S. Also, as a future improvement, we _really_ shouldn't be linking to
> > bugzilla for our list. I've never seen a release notes document or
> > changelog do that in my entire life. It would be _far_ more user friendly
> > to list the changes like we did before with the bug number for each entry
> > linking to the bug report (and it's what most projects to do from what
> > I've seen).
> What we used to do was, literally (and I mean literally) copy/paste the
> bugzilla entry title and stick it in the changelog.
> 
> It's THE SAME LIST as in the bugzilla list. It's even in the same order.
> It's just that the bugzilla generated list is complete.
> 
> I don't understand your rationale that it's _far_ more user friendly. It's
> the exact same list, in the exact same order, with the exact same text.

Okay, _far_ more friendly is probably an exaggeration, but I definitely think 
that it's unfriendly to redirect people to bugzilla for the changelog, and 
several other people have said the same in this thread.

The normal thing to do is do what we did before and list all of the changes on 
a single page which people can look over at a glance without caring one whit 
about bugzilla (beyond possibly clicking on one of the bug numbers for more 
details). It also means fewer clicks, because you don't have to click to get 
at any of the lists. I have _never_ seen any changelog other than ours use 
bugzilla queries for its contents. They're pretty much always done in a manner 
that allows them to be put in a text file (one which is frequently provided 
with the released files themselves or otherwise sitting in the repository along 
with the README and whatnot).

- Jonathan M Davis