[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req.
From: |
Florian Weimer |
Subject: |
Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req. |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Jan 2014 21:43:06 +0100 |
* Richard Stallman:
> > Our ChangeLog files are very useful in debugging.
>
> Then you're not following the GNU Coding Standards. :-)
>
> There is no constructive point there, only an insult.
It was not intended as such, I'm sorry if it came across this way.
> If you have some constructive criticism, please state it clearly.
In particular, this advice does not make much sense to me:
| For changes to code, there’s no need to describe the full purpose of
| the changes or how they work together. If you think that a change
| calls for explanation, you’re probably right. Please do explain it—but
| please put the full explanation in comments in the code, where people
| will see it whenever they see the code. For example, “New function” is
| enough for the change log when you add a function, because there
| should be a comment before the function definition to explain what it
| does.
<http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Log-Concepts.html>
I find this pretty strange because adding comments typically does not
make sense when one removes code (which sometimes needs *more*
explanation than adding code). And when rearranging code, there is
often no single place to put a comment *why* this was done.
I never consult changelog files if I have the full VCS history. In my
experience, grepping diffs, annotate/blame, or bisecting is more
helpful (assuming that I have a hunch history provides an explanation)
because the raw bits are usually less misleading, and the changelog
files are often deliberately devoid of any additional information.
The lisp/ changelog seems to deviate from this a bit, but there are
other GNU projects where the changelog rules are enforced through
review.
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., (continued)
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Richard Stallman, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Glenn Morris, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Bastien, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/04
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Florian Weimer, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Richard Stallman, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req.,
Florian Weimer <=
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Richard Stallman, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/07
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/07
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/07