Mentioning HACKING in ChangeLog (was: Re: [FYI] Fix regression in test `colon4.test'.)

[Stefano Lattarini]

Hi Ralf.

On Monday 13 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> 
> I'm pushing this to maint.
> 
> 
>     * HACKING: Hint at old commits with `git describe' output.
> 
> diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING
> index d9b2099..ecbd0a8 100644
> --- a/HACKING
> +++ b/HACKING
> @@ -143,6 +143,8 @@
>  the active branches descending from the buggy commit.  This
>  offers a simple way to fix the bug consistently and effectively.
> 
> +* When referring to older commits, use 'git describe' output as pointer.
> +
>  * There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new
>  developments. They should be based off of a common ancestor of all
>  active branches to which the feature should be merged later.  The
>  next branch may serve as
I see that, in fact, the pushed commit also contains a ChangeLog entry,
while HACKING explicitly mandate not to be mentioned in ChangeLog.  Why
this inconsistency?

IMVHO we should we just remove that odd requirement, and let HACKING
be happily mentioned in the ChangeLog like all the other files are.

Regards,
   Stefano