moving away from changelog.dd?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 04:19:20 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/23/2012 8:18 PM, 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.
> 
> An example would be helpful, as I'm not seeing the rationale.

I already did. The message about the std.format changes wouldn't make any 
sense in bugzilla. Not to mention, what are you going to do to get that in the 
changelog, try and create a bug report with that as its title (assuming that 
bugzilla will let you create one that long) so that it'll pop up in the 
changelog? Not to mention, that would put it in the middle of the changelog 
when we wanted that at the top because of its importance.

Also, I don't think that notices about stuff being deprecated would make any 
sense in bugzilla. They're not bugs. And I see no reason to try and put 
notices for new functionality in bugzilla (e.g. module std.x has been added 
which does XYZZY). In general, what goes in the WHATSNEW section just doesn't 
make sense in bugzilla. The only exception might be stuff that was enhancement 
requests which have been implemented.

I'm all for automating the list of bug fixes, but I see zero reason to try and 
automate what goes in the WHATSNEW section.

- Jonathan M Davis