[Development] Maintainers, your action needed: Qt 5.12.2 changes files

Mitch Curtis mitch.curtis at qt.io
Thu Feb 21 14:00:50 CET 2019

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> On Behalf Of
> Shawn Rutledge
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2019 1:45 PM
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Maintainers, your action needed: Qt 5.12.2
> changes files
> > On 21 Feb 2019, at 12:47, Cristián Maureira-Fredes <Cristian.Maureira-
> Fredes at qt.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > so, we agree the Go one (qtqa) is the recommended one?
> >
> > Time ago, I was directed to this one:
> > http://code.qt.io/cgit/qtsdk/qtsdk.git/tree/packaging-tools/create_cha
> > ngelog.pl and ended up suggesting this one as a replacement for the Qt
> > for Python project: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/252162/
> >
> > I understand it is better to focus on one script and improve it so
> > that's why I would like to know which is the preferred option.
> I wanted to automate the manual work I’d been doing for every release to
> get most of the bug fixes listed in the changelog (including those which don’t
> have changelog entries in the commit message); and I’d rather write Go than
> Perl, so I did a couple of patches on that tool.  (The last change is just now
> integrated.)  It works for me, but it intentionally strays on the side of “too
> much information.”  It combines the git commit message with the Jira bug
> description, so those entries always needs editing to get a concise changelog
> message.  For me that’s fine, because neither Jira bug descriptions nor
> commit messages are written in the right style for a changelog, but at least all
> the information gets into the file so that I don’t have to individually look up
> bugs on Jira to find out what certain changes were really about (as long as the
> subject is descriptive enough).
> So I don’t know if every maintainer would like to work that way; maybe some
> would rather stray on the side of having the generation mostly automated
> and not adding every bug fix?  But in practice it seems e.g. the qtbase
> changelog has always needed plenty of manual editing.  So having the
> changelog a bit rough at first won’t be any more work than what’s been
> going on.
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/253930/ PS2 is currently showing
> exactly the output of this tool, so you can compare PS1 to PS2 to see the
> difference.
> The boilerplate does need a little work.  So far I didn’t think we would
> actually use this tool for the whole log, I just wanted to use it to get some
> more entries to blend into the existing log.  But if we want to use it for real,
> fixing it up a little more won’t be hard.

I think this is a good addition. I also found myself looking up bug reports to see how else I could phrase the message. At a minimum the tense has to be fixed for each entry ("Fix" or other verb => "Fixed") anyway.

> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

More information about the Development mailing list