User/player-friendly changelog

[zookeeper]

As anyone can see from looking at the file changelog, most parts of it are irrelevant and most likely incomprehensible to the average player. So, there is now a players_changelog file in addition to the good old changelog, where changes visible to the player should be recorded (in addition to putting them in changelog). Please use clean English, and follow the formatting established whenever humanly possibly (if not, then someone can clean it up afterwards if you drop a line to someone, like me, about it).

http://changelog.wesnoth.org now points to players_changelog by default (or it should, that URL still redirects me to changelog).

So, in case I wasn't being clear, the rationale of this change is to provide the player with an understandable (but still somewhat detailed) list of changes for versions between stable releases (for which there are always more verbose announcements and such). Of course this can also be included as-is in stable release announcements, when the time comes.

[Sangel]

While I have no objections to this idea, might it be easier simply to run through the changelog at release and compile a list of player-visible changes? Or would the concern be that the person who did this wouldn't know certain changes intimately enough to tell if they were player-visible or not?

[zookeeper]

The changelog has now been split into two separate files, see the first post again.

[Viliam]

Having too changelogs means maintaining the same information twice -- the GUI changes are botth in player changelog and full changelog. Maybe there is a way to avoid this...?

One possibility would be in the big changelog to mark sections or individual items, to categories like "program GUI changes", "unit stats changes", "engine changes", "localization changes"... and then have a script which would extract individual changelogs from the big one.

By the way, I like the new changelog -- it is comprehensive and nice to read.

[irrevenant]

The changelog for players really should be more detailed than the standard changelog. As such, I don't know that it would be possible to auto-extract from the standard changelog.

It might make sense to have a more detailed changelog from which both are extracted though.