Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

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

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> 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.

  Reminds me of my friend who insists that evolution is nothing more
than hoax and when I try to educate him, he doesn't want to discuss
it. :) There are simply two facts to be kept in mind here:

1. All information in the ChangeLog is redundant.
2.  Maintaining a ChangeLog only and only realizes otherwise
inexistent conflicts.

   It is as simple as that.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124