Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-17 Thread Erik Bray
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Thierry wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:35:48PM +, Simon King wrote: >> On 2017-01-16, David Roe wrote: >> > I don't think anyone's arguing that a changelog is a bad idea. The question >> > is just whether it's easier to make from fragments in the reposito

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-17 Thread Thierry
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:35:48PM +, Simon King wrote: > On 2017-01-16, David Roe wrote: > > I don't think anyone's arguing that a changelog is a bad idea. The question > > is just whether it's easier to make from fragments in the repository or > > from a new field on trac. Personally I think

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-16 Thread kcrisman
> > > The expertise to choose a suitable aggregation rule for the poll results > is in house > (literally - my wife does research on this sort of stuff, computational > social choice :-)). > True! But she also knows there ain't no suitable rule for all definitions of suitable ... luckily it

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-16 Thread David Roe
I don't think anyone's arguing that a changelog is a bad idea. The question is just whether it's easier to make from fragments in the repository or from a new field on trac. Personally I think trac, though being able to edit fragments from previous tickets is appealing. Either way, there should be

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-16 Thread Erik Bray
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 3:41:23 PM UTC, Erik Bray wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:15:49 AM UTC, Erik Bray wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 201

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-15 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 6:58:38 PM UTC, William wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 11:09:53 PM UTC, Volker Braun wrote: > >> > >> There is a somewhat painless approach to generating human-readable > release > >> n

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-15 Thread William Stein
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 11:09:53 PM UTC, Volker Braun wrote: >> >> There is a somewhat painless approach to generating human-readable release >> notes using https://github.com/hawkowl/towncrier. As far as the ticket >> author is co

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-13 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:05:56 PM UTC, Volker Braun wrote: > > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 8:38:50 PM UTC+1, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: >> >> If #1 adds foo() to graphs and #2 adds bar(), then the list should have >> something like "Graph enchancements: foo() and bar()." Which ticket >> sh

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-13 Thread Volker Braun
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 8:38:50 PM UTC+1, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: > > If #1 adds foo() to graphs and #2 adds bar(), then the list should have > something like "Graph enchancements: foo() and bar()." Which ticket should > contain that information? > Ticket #2 could delete newsfragment/1.fea

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-13 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:38:50 AM UTC-8, Jori Mäntysalo wrote: > > > If #1 adds foo() to graphs and #2 adds bar(), then the list should have > something like "Graph enchancements: foo() and bar()." Which ticket should > contain that information? > > Meta-ticket #3 "Graph enhancements in

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-13 Thread Jori Mäntysalo
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017, Erik Bray wrote: Yes, I support this. The idea is to have a high-level view that end users can digest as to what changed as it impacts them. This certainly *should* include bug fixes - - What tickets should not be on the list? I think that most bugs should not be listed

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-13 Thread Kwankyu Lee
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 4:54:57 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > it's not really documentation, it is more of advertising! > > some kind of write-once read-never thing, many people won't be bothered. > I also do not read change log for every release, but when my code is affected by

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-13 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 3:41:23 PM UTC, Erik Bray wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:15:49 AM UTC, Erik Bray wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Kwankyu Lee > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-13 Thread Erik Bray
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:15:49 AM UTC, Erik Bray wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 8:10:54 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> O

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-13 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:15:49 AM UTC, Erik Bray wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Kwankyu Lee > wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 8:10:54 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:01:55 PM UTC, Volker Braun

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Release note auto-generation RFC

2017-01-13 Thread Erik Bray
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 8:10:54 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:01:55 PM UTC, Volker Braun wrote: >>> >>> The whole point of NEWS would be to have coarser granularity than >>> individu