Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

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 ?


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