[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Is it time to drop ChangeLogs?

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Is it time to drop ChangeLogs?
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:32:21 +0200

> From: Karl Fogel <address@hidden>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>,  John Wiegley <address@hidden>,  
> address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:18:19 -0600
> Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
> >Yes, the ChangeLog format is useful. I use it myself for commits I
> >make to GNU projects (as well as some non-GNU projects, e.g.,
> >https://github.com/eggert/tz). Perhaps the format could be improved,
> >but that should be a different thread.
> >
> >On 03/09/2016 07:53 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> So removing ChangeLog files will be a bad blow to our ability to
> >> easily and conveniently research the past,
> >
> >No, this doesn't follow. If we use ChangeLog formats in commit
> >messages, we can still research the past easily and conveniently.
> >
> >> If we drop the ChangeLog files, there's no way we can explain why we
> >> ask for commit log messages in ChangeLog format, so the next logical
> >> step is to drop that as well, and we will then lose valuable
> >> information.
> >
> >It's not a logical step at all, and we already have an explanation of
> >why we ask for ChangeLog format in CONTRIBUTE. Perhaps the explanation
> >can be improved, but that's true no matter what approach we take
> >(assuming we continue to prefer ChangeLog format).
> What Paul said.
> The conflation of "ChangeLog-style entries" with "ChangeLog files" has been a 
> persistent anti-pattern in this discussion.  It just causes confusion.  It 
> would help if we remained clear about the distinction, since the former does 
> not imply the latter.
> This isn't merely a theoretical distinction.  I've been writing all my commit 
> messages in the style of a ChangeLog entry for as long as I can remember (not 
> just in this project), and 'git log' shows that other developers have been 
> doing that in this project too.  Which is good, since that's exactly what the 
> CONTRIBUTE guidelines currently recommend.

Paul omitted an important part of what I said, which of course made
the point I was trying to make incoherent.

And you are just repeating his omission.  And then you claim that
others cause confusion, whereas in fact you confuse yourself (and
perhaps others) by reading selectively what I and others say.  How
does this make any sense?

reply via email to

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