Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

[Tristan Van Berkom <tvb gnome org>]

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git on
> demand.  Those macros have been modified and gathered in
> http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog to only generate ChangeLog for "make
> dist".  I wonder what people actually want to have, so I can work on
> canonical macros to copy across projects (and eventually find a better way
> to distribute).  Pros and cons:
>

Personally, I prefer maintaining an actual revisioned ChangeLog file, simply
because I like having the ChangeLog as a part of the project data, revisioning
tools come and go, projects get exported and imported, but the ChangeLog
always remains in the repository or published tarball.

... I'd be tempted though to somehow preset the commit message
of a changeset to be the current diffs against the ChangeLog (i.e.
when prompted with the editor), that would save me a step of getting
the information from ChangeLog into the commit message...

Cheers,
                 -Tristan

> Pros for generating ChangeLog proper:
>
>  - No need to have a placeholder ChangeLog, nor need to pass "foreign" to
> automake
>
>  - You can "make ChangeLog" and inspect it before it goes into the tarball
>
> Cons:
>
>  - Have to modify autogen.sh to create an empty ChangeLog, or pass the
> "foreign" flag to automake
>
>
> Humm, no idea about pros and cons of the other approach.  So, what do people
> think?
>
> Cheers,
> behdad
>
> PS.  If you need any autotools hacking, related to git or not, feel free to
> ping me.  I'd always be happy to help.
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>