Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

[Ruben Vermeersch <ruben savanne be>]

On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:20 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dan Winship <danw gnome org> wrote:
> [...]
> > So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
> > history on one end and NEWS on the other? Who are the people who need
> > more information than NEWS gives, but who would not want to actually
> > check out the source tree, and what information, exactly, do they need?
> 
> Generally its the tarball that is published and trusted, not the git repository.

Given that tags can be signed in Git, shouldn't it be about time that we
move to a more modern way of trust, one that maintains a 1:1 mapping
between changelog and changes?

Kind regards,
   Ruben


--
Ruben Vermeersch (rubenv)
http://www.savanne.be/