Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

["Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeenix gmail com>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Tristan Van Berkom <tvb gnome org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Cody Russell <bratsche gnome org> wrote:
> [....]
>> 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.
>>
>
> You always post ChangeLogs diffs with large patches, large patches
> generally come to the maintainer in the form of a patch, with a single
> changelog entry, the maintainer reviewing a branch doesnt want to
> see the revision history of what happened on the branch, or why
> you reverted that peice of code thats not actually in the patch
> (and never made it into the baseline/trunk).
>
> Now if I can demand that a patch submitter provide the base minimum:
>  - A patch that applies to trunk
>  - A rich ChangeLog entry that describes what happens in the change
>
> Then why would I waste my time flipping through individual commit
> logs ?

  Dude, we have moved to git and you are still talking of versioned
ChangeLog and favoring large patches?

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124