Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

[Cody Russell <bratsche gnome org>]

On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 22:23 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> > 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.

Yeah, but the thing that sucks about versioned ChangeLogs is
merging/rebasing your code.  Typically you always leave writing a
ChangeLog last for this reason, but it just makes so much more sense to
be able to write your entry when you do your commit.

If you're posting a branch for review or something, people can read your
commit logs as well as the code.. but if you post patches for review,
you probably don't post the ChangeLog with it because it'll get
clobbered when you have to merge it into the tree.