[commit: unix] master: change notes (1461d21)
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com
Sun Feb 3 23:49:42 CET 2013
On Feb 4, 2013 8:43 AM, "Ian Lynagh" <ian at well-typed.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 08:48:13PM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > On 02/02/13 14:11, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > >
> > >>diff --git a/unix.cabal b/unix.cabal
> > >>index 287caa8..1aaaec9 100644
> > >>--- a/unix.cabal
> > >>+++ b/unix.cabal
> > >>@@ -14,6 +14,11 @@ description:
> > >> IEEE Std. 1003.1).
> > >> .
> > >> The package is not supported under Windows (except under Cygwin).
> > >>+ .
> > >>+ Changes in 126.96.36.199:
> > >>+ .
> > >>+ * @ProcessStatus@ changed to include a core-dumped flag.
> > >>+
> > >> extra-source-files:
> > >> config.guess config.sub install-sh
> > >> configure.ac configure
> > >
> > >Also, what's the plan for the changelog? Is the package description
> > >going to accumulate entries, or just show those for the most recent
> > >version? Wouldn't it be better to include a CHANGES file instead?
> > I've got into the habit of putting change notes in the description
> > field of the .cabal file, because they appear prominently in the
> > Haddock docs, whereas a CHANGES file or similar is hard to find and
> > tends to get forgotten (at least I tend to forget it).
> > I don't have a specific rule for the number of versions to keep, but
> > I suppose you wouldn't want the list to get too long.
> Hmm. I think it would be better to have Cabal/haddock understand a
> CHANGES file in a particular format. That way haddock (and hackage)
> could show the recent changes on a package's page, with a link to the
> full history, and the description can remain just a description of what
> the package does.
Or even just a link to the raw text file on Hackage.
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries