moving away from changelog.dd?

[monarch_dodra]

On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 04:48:07 UTC, Kapps wrote:
> On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 04:19:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 23, 2012 23:13:53 Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/23/12 11:08 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> > It's just the WHATSNEW section that makes no sense to 
>>> > automate.
>>> 
>>> Enhancement requests may fill most of the bill...
>>
>> They definitely don't fill all of it though. We need to be 
>> able to put specific
>> messages in the changelog separate from bugzilla entries.
>>
>> I really don't see why it's that big a deal that the WHATSNEW 
>> section isn't
>> automated though. It's the LIBBUGSFIXED section that causes 
>> all the grief, and
>> that's easily automated.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
>
> Personally I think it nicer that things like What's New would 
> be written out by a human. Instead of just "Enhancement #4713: 
> Add user-defined annotations", you can give a quick explanation 
> of what actually was added and a link to get more info about 
> it. Same for phobos modules and the like.

Would it be a crazy idea to move the page to the wiki, and only 
pack it back into dmd when it gets packaged?

I'd say the problem with changelog.dd is the effort associated 
with modifying it, no? On the wiki, it's basically "edit" "write" 
"commit" "done".

The fact that you have to do an actual pull just to add an entry 
to a changelog makes something that should be easy as pie a real 
chore, and work grinds to a halt.