[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: 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.


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

reply via email to

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