Re: Why have a ChangeLog file if you already have commit messages?

["Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro" <gjc inescporto pt>]

On Seg, 2007-09-17 at 10:49 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:36 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > Le samedi 15 septembre 2007 �8:19 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a �it :
> > 
> > > Of course no project using git maintains ChangeLog.
> > 
> > Why? You could update the ChangeLog when commiting changes on git
> 
> what's the point? a ChangeLog is useful for people that do not have
> access to the repository and to the history of the project. if you clone
> a git repository you have the full history, with the ability to see each
> commit complete of a diff and a summary (this is also why listing all
> the functions that have been touched by the commit is pretty much
> useless).

It should also be emphasized that maintaining a ChangeLog file under
version control *gets in the way* of branching and merging.  That little
detail seems to ellude everyone's grasp, for some reason.

  Having a ChangeLog file under version control not only means that you
have to duplicate information in every commit (once in changelog, once
in commit log message), but also that you will almost always get
conflicts when merging branches.

  The ChangeLog therefore throws away one of the biggest advantages of
DSCM, which is not only offering decentralized source control, or very
fast commits, but also much more intelligent branching and merging when
compared to CVS or Subversion.

-- 
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
INESC Porto, Telecommunications and Multimedia Unit
"The universe is always one step beyond logic." -- Frank Herbert