| 1 |
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 10:18, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> > echangelog <text> <bug> <foo> <bar> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> These are fields, separated by spaces, too. What about when I type (take in |
| 5 |
> account my second nick name is typo): |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> echangelog had to touch this <beeep> ebuild the 4 th time because of |
| 8 |
> continuing problems with bug 0815 and 4711 - thanks to joe helpful et al |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> How does echangelog know which of these numbers refer to bug reports? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Actually, it would throw an error to begin with since you're not using |
| 13 |
the desired input format. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You would need to input something like: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
echangelog "had to touch this <beeep> ebuild the 4 th time because of |
| 18 |
continuing problems with bug 0815 and 4711" "815 4711" "joe helpful" |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It would take the bugs from the "bugs" field. It shouldn't parse the |
| 21 |
text field at all. That's the whole point that I think everyone is |
| 22 |
trying to make with xml'izing the ChangeLog. Instead, you would do |
| 23 |
something more like this: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
echangelog "Modified src_unpack to add the fix-bug-0815.patch and also |
| 26 |
the fix-bug-4711.patch to the ebuild" "815 4711" "Joe Helpful, Johnny |
| 27 |
Patchmaker, Bob User" |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
...and of course, anything but the first field is optional, so for most |
| 30 |
changes, nothing would change as far as the developer is concerned. The |
| 31 |
whole point is to *allow* for better data handling, not to force more |
| 32 |
work on every developer. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 36 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
| 37 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives