Re: Status reports - why not regularly?

If memory serves me right, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:56:53 -0500 (EST)
> Robert Watson <rwatson_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> > The "summarize the commits" would also be an excellent approach, but it
> > will be a lot more labor intensive.
> 
> Don't we have something like this already? We just need to provide 'some
> kind of a diff' of bmah's work. At least from an end-user point of view
> that's all what's needed (they want to know: X is new, Y is improved).

Since this message just happened to mention me, I figure I'll reply to
it:

The "diff of bmah's work" doesn't work real well because I sometimes
let the release notes diverge from reality, as long as they're back in
sync for a release.  (For the record, there *are* other people who
commit to the release notes besides me, not many, but there are a
few.)  Anyways, for people who are really desperate to try this,
there's always cvsweb.  :-)

BTW, contributions for the release notes (for example, things that
should be documented but aren't) are always welcome.

I actually really like the format of the bi-monthly development
reports because they give developers a chance to talk in some depth
about stuff that was *ongoing*, rather than work they had already
committed.  I've always been impressed by the quality and depth of the
snippets that have gone into these.

Bruce.