|Date:||Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:10:08 -0500|
It seems to me that the ChangeLog is an anachronism born in a time before source control systems, and a poor substitute for the actual patch. The GCS does not explain the role of the ChangeLog file in the context of a system like CVS, and I find that to be a glaring omission. Why would you want a ChangeLog when CVS can tell you what *really* happened?
I guess my real problem is the level of detail in the ChangeLog: way too much, or way too little. If you want that much detail, read the patch. "New variable" doesn't give you enough detail anyways: What type is it? Where is it initialized? Where is it used? Or it gives you too much detail: maybe you just want to know that there's a firmware bug in certain systems that we work around by setting a flag so later code knows to avoid it.
There are also many ChangeLog features (such as say "macro" instead of "#define", and "variable" instead of "global") which are not described in the GCS, so I assume these are either project/maintainer-specific, or unwritten rules that all GNU members "just know". That makes it very difficult to follow them.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|