Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 21:53 +0200, Murray Cumming 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.

When gnome-common is unbroken, I have on my TODO list to write a macro
for it, which apps can use. I maintain too many modules to fancy doing
it for all of them by hand :)