[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Is it time to drop ChangeLogs?

From: Nikolaus Rath
Subject: Re: Is it time to drop ChangeLogs?
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:28:21 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)

On Mar 07 2016, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>> From: Nikolaus Rath <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:15:16 -0800
>> On Mar 07 2016, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >> From: Nikolaus Rath <address@hidden>
>> >> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:46:30 -0800
>> >> 
>> >> When I submitted my first Emacs patch, I was astonished when I was asked
>> >> to re-submit with my commit message essentially duplicated in the
>> >> ChangeLog.
>> >
>> > One is just a copy of the other, so I fail to see a problem, or a
>> > reason for astonishment.
>> One just being a copy of the other is the reason for astonishment.
> I still don't see why.  It's a simple request that is easily
> accomplished.  I mentioned several other GNU projects that do the
> same.  It's accepted practice.

Asking me to walk three times around my chair before making the commit
is also a simple request that's easily accomplished. That doesn't make
it any less astonishing. There is just no apparent good reason for this
duplication. Thus it astonishes.

>> >> How can it be an increased burden if reviewers have to review just one
>> >> thing (the commit message) instead of two (commit message and
>> >> ChangeLog)?
>> >
>> > No one reviews the same text twice, so doing this will not affect the
>> > review directly.
>> Well, you are the one who claimed that it makes a difference.
> No, you've misunderstood what I wrote.
>> > Indirectly, it will make sure your patches are cleaner, because
>> > summarizing what you did will frequently reveal subtle blunders and
>> > things you forgot.
>> We are talking about the advantages of making a copy of that summary,
>> after it has been written.
> You didn't read what I wrote about the current system.  If we stop
> producing ChangeLog files, there will be no reason for having detailed
> enough commit log messages, and soon enough there will be no
> summaries.

I don't see how one follows from the other. Why isn't whatever measure
you are currently take to ensure detailed ChangeLog files equally
suitable to ensure detailed commit messages?


GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

reply via email to

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