| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 06:34, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> I never assumed to write xml by hand - Stuarts email sound a bit like it - but |
| 3 |
> even "field1"<enter>, "field2"<enter>, ... would be annoying. If echangelog |
| 4 |
> would be smart and parse the input, that would be ok. Maybe I got it wrong, |
| 5 |
> but I was under the impression that there would be at least one new field be |
| 6 |
> introduced, indicating the importance of a bug fix; And a increasing number |
| 7 |
> of fields wouldn't make parsing input simpler. If using xml doesn't |
| 8 |
> complicate writing the ChangeLog I'm all for it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
What about something like: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
echangelog <text> <bug> <foo> <bar> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Then you make echangelog a bit smart. You could use it in several ways. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
echangelog "text here" for changes that are made without a bug attached |
| 17 |
or any additional information. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
echangelog "text here" "69" for changes that are made to close bug #69. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But what if you want to enter <foo> but not a bug? Then you would use |
| 22 |
echangelog "text here" "" "foo" (just an idea). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
All of this would keep echangelog from getting too complex, while still |
| 25 |
giving it flexibility. Any better ideas are definitely welcome... =] |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 29 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives