[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ChangeLogs in the elpa branch

From: Glenn Morris
Subject: Re: ChangeLogs in the elpa branch
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:10:42 -0400
User-agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/)

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> Reasons I object to getting rid of ChangeLogs:
>> 1) Using Emacs VC, you only have to write the ChangeLog, then use C-c
>> C-a to insert it into the commit buffer. So there is no need to "write
>> the same thing twice".
> That doesn't seem like an objection but more like a reason why you're
> willing to live with the duplication.

OK. But much of the motivation to make the change seems to be "there will
be less to type". I'm saying I don't find that compelling.
I find the extra work involved in maintaining a ChangeLog to be worth it.

(Did I miss some other reason why this change is desirable, beyond
"somewhat fewer keypresses", and "slightly easier merging between

CVS had both editable logs, and a cvs2log program, so what's changed?
I guess it's that people tend to use more branches now, and find merging
ChangeLogs difficult? As I said, try the changelog_merge plugin for
that. Or don't keep (versioned) ChangeLogs in your personal branches.)

>> 2) Sometimes I want to put more detail into the commit log, which is
>> not appropriate for the ChangeLog.
> Without stating why, I can't assess how serious this is.

It tends to be things like adding hrefs to emacs-devel discussions, or
explaining more _why_ a change is needed as opposed to simply stating
what the change was.

>> 3) ChangeLogs can be edited to correct mistakes, commit logs cannot.
> That's not written in stone.  CVS can edit its commit logs, and there's
> no reason the same can't be done for other revision control systems.

Shall we wait till bzr gets a good implementation of this feature then?

> Better yet: there's no reason we can't do it ourselves in a (potentially
> even backend-agnostic) way that will work for C-x v l and for
> auto-generation of a ChangeLog file.

This doesn't sound "better" to me.

>> 4) I have the impression that having to write ChangeLogs leads to
>> higher quality entries than just using commit logs would.
> I think this just reflects the better support in change-log-mode, with
> highlighting, C-x 4 a and things like that.

I disagree, I think people take more care with ChangeLogs.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]