[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: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req. |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:00:38 -0500 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
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 find there is generally some place in the source file where
the explanation belongs. It can be in some related place in the code,
someplace where people will see it when it is relevant.
But why not put it in ChangeLog? It wouldn't be horrible to put it
there, from time to time. But preferably not often.
One ChangeLog file covers many source files, and if we generally put
the explanations in ChangeLog, it would become cumbersome. So it is
better to put those explanations in the source code.
Also, most often an explanation is directly relevant to existing code,
and the best way to make sure people see it is to put it there.
I never consult changelog files if I have the full VCS history.
I do. I use the ChangeLog files to see what changes affected
a certain function. Then I use VC history to look at the changes
that are relevant to the issue.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., (continued)
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Richard Stallman, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Glenn Morris, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Bastien, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/04
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Florian Weimer, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Richard Stallman, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Florian Weimer, 2014/01/05
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req.,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/06
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., David Kastrup, 2014/01/07
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/07
- Re: PROPOSAL: Move to git, now that bzr is no longer a req., Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/07
Re: bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/01/02