Release rbtools 0.5

Review Request #3974 — Created March 18, 2013 and submitted

smacleod
RBTools
master
rbtools
chipx86
Release rbtools 0.5

Provide the release notes for 0.5, and bump the version number.
Built the documentation with 'make html'
Description From Last Updated

Two blank lines.

chipx86chipx86

"RBTools"

chipx86chipx86

Maybe just say "The new rbt command line tool provides ..."

chipx86chipx86

Thinking these should be, for this release, listed as a child of the "rbt" header. In fact, I'd say we ...

chipx86chipx86

Missing period. Same on other similar lines.

chipx86chipx86

Capitalize the sentence. Comma after "optionally"

chipx86chipx86

:option:`--close-type`

chipx86chipx86

"Print" shouldn't be capitalized. I'd actually leave out the "standard out" bit. Too technical. "To the screen" would be fine.

chipx86chipx86

:option:`--diff-revision`

chipx86chipx86

post-review's

chipx86chipx86

directory's

chipx86chipx86

Comma after "Optionally"

chipx86chipx86

"repository"

chipx86chipx86

:envvar:`P4PORT`

chipx86chipx86

That's an internal note. Let's not put it in the release notes.

chipx86chipx86

ClearCase. This doesn't really tell me what the implications of this fix are. It should tell the user why this ...

chipx86chipx86

This is an internal thing only we care about (for the most part), and "shebang" is not a very commonly ...

chipx86chipx86

Too many blank lines.

chipx86chipx86

"Perforce"

chipx86chipx86

Comma after "file". "Review Board" I'd also change this sentence to be past-tense. "If you made ... Review Board would ...

chipx86chipx86

:command:`p4 info`

chipx86chipx86

Past-tense. :command:`p4 info` Actually, this whole description is confusing and doesn't really tell me much of anything. It should be ...

chipx86chipx86

ClearCase.

chipx86chipx86

ClearCase. This isn't so much about post-review now, so I'd say "posting review requests." Same with the description below.

chipx86chipx86

"snapshot views" We shouldn't say things like "Changes were made." Rather, we should describe what the bug was.

chipx86chipx86

Internal implementation. Nuke it. Users don't care.

chipx86chipx86

2 blank lines.

chipx86chipx86

:command:`svn`

chipx86chipx86

This is going into imlementation. Just focus on what the problem was and that it's now fixed.

chipx86chipx86

2 blank lines.

chipx86chipx86

Internal changes aren't something we generally put in release notes. If people care, they can look at commits. Our release ...

chipx86chipx86

March 19 now :(

chipx86chipx86
reviewbot
  1. This is a review from Review Bot.
      Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
      Processed Files:
        rbtools/__init__.py
      Ignored Files:
        docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt
        docs/releasenotes/rbtools/index.txt
    
    
  2. 
      
chipx86
  1. 
      
  2. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
    Two blank lines.
  3. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    "RBTools"
  4. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Maybe just say "The new rbt command line tool provides ..."
  5. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Thinking these should be, for this release, listed as a child of the "rbt" header.
    
    In fact, I'd say we should structure this like:
    
      rbt
      ===
    
      This is the initial release of our new command line tool, rbt. It provides blah blah.
    
      There are a number of built-in sub-commands.
    
    
      rbt attach
      ~~~~~~~~~~
    
    etc.
  6. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Missing period. Same on other similar lines.
  7. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Capitalize the sentence.
    
    Comma after "optionally"
  8. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    :option:`--close-type`
  9. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    "Print" shouldn't be capitalized. I'd actually leave out the "standard out" bit. Too technical. "To the screen" would be fine.
  10. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    :option:`--diff-revision`
  11. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    post-review's
  12. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    directory's
  13. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Comma after "Optionally"
  14. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    "repository"
  15. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    :envvar:`P4PORT`
  16. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
    That's an internal note. Let's not put it in the release notes.
  17. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    ClearCase.
    
    This doesn't really tell me what the implications of this fix are. It should tell the user why this matters.
  18. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    This is an internal thing only we care about (for the most part), and "shebang" is not a very commonly known term (it might actually be pretty misleading). Let's nuke it.
  19. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Too many blank lines.
  20. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    "Perforce"
  21. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Comma after "file".
    
    "Review Board"
    
    I'd also change this sentence to be past-tense. "If you made ... Review Board would choke ..."
    
    We also shouldn't include the "suspect it's a regression" part.
  22. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    :command:`p4 info`
  23. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Past-tense.
    
    :command:`p4 info`
    
    Actually, this whole description is confusing and doesn't really tell me much of anything. It should be rewritten to be clear about how it impacted me as a user.
  24. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    ClearCase.
  25. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    ClearCase.
    
    This isn't so much about post-review now, so I'd say "posting review requests." Same with the description below.
  26. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    "snapshot views"
    
    We shouldn't say things like "Changes were made." Rather, we should describe what the bug was.
  27. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Internal implementation. Nuke it. Users don't care.
  28. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
    2 blank lines.
  29. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    :command:`svn`
  30. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    This is going into imlementation. Just focus on what the problem was and that it's now fixed.
  31. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
    2 blank lines.
  32. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Internal changes aren't something we generally put in release notes. If people care, they can look at commits. Our release notes are much more user-facing.
  33. 
      
SM
reviewbot
  1. This is a review from Review Bot.
      Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
      Processed Files:
        rbtools/__init__.py
      Ignored Files:
        docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt
        docs/releasenotes/rbtools/index.txt
    
    
  2. 
      
david
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
chipx86
  1. 
      
  2. docs/releasenotes/rbtools/0.5.txt (Diff revision 2)
     
     
    March 19 now :(
  3. 
      
SM
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Pushed to master (db53f3dbe5e1a166940e2191180013f593e402c0).
Loading...