Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:01 -0500, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> > Same thing with the dates. The old ChangeLog only had dates, not
> time,
> > so there is imho no loss in just using dates in the autogenerated
> file.
> 
> I agree with alex.  The changelog should be easily readable.  big
> strings of +++++++------ 
> make it harder to scan.  If we want that detailed level of
> information, we can always 
> extract it from git on demand anyway.

If anybody eventually thinks they have a decent way to generate
ChangeLogs then please do add it here so we can have some consistency:
http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog

I'm interested to see the result, though I'm frankly resigned to the
entropy increase. I personally have never seen a generated ChangeLog
that was anywhere near as useful as a separate ChangeLog, regardless of
what other tools are available to do commits archeology, so my projects
will not change that practice just because of a VCS change. No, I'm not
interested in discussing it.


-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com