Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Vermeersch <ruben savanne be> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:20 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dan Winship <danw gnome org> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
>> > history on one end and NEWS on the other? Who are the people who need
>> > more information than NEWS gives, but who would not want to actually
>> > check out the source tree, and what information, exactly, do they need?
>> Generally its the tarball that is published and trusted, not the git repository.
> Given that tags can be signed in Git, shouldn't it be about time that we
> move to a more modern way of trust, one that maintains a 1:1 mapping
> between changelog and changes?

For someone that maintains a module, how you manage your
ChangeLog and how much you trust your current revisioning system
to do what you expect is your business, I personally feel safer
populating my revision history with ChangeLog entries and not
the other way around, but thats my perogative and besides the point here.

On the other hand, for someone who receives your release, i.e.
your tarball, they dont want to know how you manage your ChangeLog
or your revision history, without forcing them to understand git,
or understand branching schemes in GNOME, they still deserve
an exported ChangeLog (which is why I answer to Dan, this is
why we do at least need a ChangeLog, generated or otherwise).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]