add missing changelog entries for #631 #652
Conversation
PLeVasseur
left a comment
PLeVasseur
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if I'm doing this right 😅
Tried to find if any might be missing.
| - :p:`fls_YDVgFaTQwcL8` | ||
| - :p:`fls_zv73CR8rplIa` | ||
| - :p:`fls_tZJgZDWVChJV` | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the "New paragraphs" list for this item, I think we're missing a few IDs from PR #631's spec changes:
| - :p:`fls_LnPDQW3bnNUw` | |
| - :p:`fls_sw6HrsxsnG2y` | |
| - :p:`fls_urIJ5JNHLhm6` | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
skipped those since they are glossary entries, but am not sure I should have... what say @kirtchev-adacore
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how I done it in the past is I would define the term inline, not in glossary, and it's then that I would add it to changelog
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should treat new paragraphs in the glossary as "regular" new paragraphs, and document them in the changelog.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as agreed in the FLS meet, I replicated the glossary entry inline so that we can put it in the changelog, since the glossary is informational
also
fls_sw6HrsxsnG2yalready has an entry inlinefls_urIJ5JNHLhm6is a glossary-only reference, pointing to the section where the glossary entry is introduced inline
| - :p:`fls_drb114dtvlpt` | ||
| - :p:`fls_uxysntb3u03j` | ||
| - :p:`fls_vstdqifqipbh` | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the "Changed paragraphs" list, two IDs from PR 631's diff look missing. One is a list-structure shift (fls_wh201rmh6u6d), the other switches :dt: to :t: (fls_y3oputy9e0sz).
| - :p:`fls_wh201rmh6u6d` | |
| - :p:`fls_y3oputy9e0sz` | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
skipped those because I see them not as semantic changes
3 participants
No description provided.