[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:16:29 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0

On 03/09/2016 08:04 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 23:58:07 -0800

My own experience is otherwise. For the kinds of development I do, I rarely see 
ChangeLog screwups now, whereas I used to see them routinely.
With or without git-merge-changelog?
Then I understand why your experience is so negative.

This appears to be implying that if I had installed git-merge-changelog and configured Git to use it, I would have had a better experience. I don't see how this would be so. As I said, I rarely do merges, so making merges work better wouldn't help me.

Please describe the details of your proposal.
For the more-traditional approach, apply the attached patch to emacs-25, and
merge it to master.  Other branches can pick it up as needed.
Didn't we consider this approach, and decided that having ChangeLog.2
was better?

Yes and no. We came up with Emacs's current approach as a compromise. I would have preferred the approach taken by Guile (no ChangeLogs at all; just use 'git log' or whatever). Second-best would have been Coreutils (ChangeLog files in tarball, mainly to keep ChangeLog-file fans happy; they're not used by people doing active development). The approach currently taken by Emacs is a further compromise, which I think nobody likes.

reply via email to

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