[Top][All Lists]

[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: Daniel Colascione
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req.
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 01:53:05 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0

On 01/03/2014 01:35 AM, Rüdiger Sonderfeld wrote:
On Friday 03 January 2014 10:17:00 Bastien wrote:
Another question is, whether we still want to write ChangeLogs manually,
or whether we want to extract them from commit comments. That's not such
easy, see all the "fix typo" comments.

I'm all for writing them manually, it's a useful exercise.

IMHO git commit messages should reproduce ChangeLogs, not the
other way around.

Generating them from commit messages would do exactly that.  Right now most
people copy all or at least parts of the ChangeLog entry to the commit message
anyway.  I agree that the format is useful and I absolutely agree that the
commit message should not necessarily only be a copy of the ChangeLog entry.

But those points are not really an obstacle or argument against auto-
generation of the ChangeLog _files_ from the commit messages

It's a lot safer to fix an error in ChangeLog than to interactively rebase and force-push a new history. Would this automated ChangeLog generation system be tolerant of manual ChangeLog editing?

If we're going to have ChangeLog files anyway, we're still going to have to deal with merging. Since we have to write change descriptions in any case and since we already have mature tools for making ChangeLog additions, we might as well retain the current system. It would be nice, though, to auto-fill commit messages based on ChangeLog deltas.

By the way: git-merge-changelog from gnulib looks useful.

reply via email to

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