Hi William, * William Pursell wrote on Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:49:22AM CET: > > You mentioned that > I should not edit the ChangeLog--are you generating it > automatically?
Well, more or less. I have macros to covert from ChangeLog entry to git commit log entry and vice versa. And a script to generate a stub ChangeLog entry. The latter is vc-chlog from the vc-dwim package: <http://www.gnu.org/software/vc-dwim/> Paolo posted a script a little while ago, I think on autoconf-patches. > Really, the question is, do you want > me to put "* doc/automake.texi:" in my git log message? Yes, if that's no problem for you. > 2nd question, how important is the subject line of > the email to you? ie, would it help if I gave some > specificity regarding the sections modified, or perhaps > started a counter and put it in the subject? I suspect > I'll be done with the manual in fairly short time (although > I don't get much time to look at it during the week) so > this is probably not a big deal. Well, the absolute easiest is if you format your mail message with 'git format-patch'. If you've never seen this, look at the git mailing list how they send patches there (with additional comments put between the '---' line and the diffstat lines). This format allows me to pipe your mail into 'git am' which automatically generates a commit from it then. Almost no work. :-) If you decide to do this, you can also keep the ChangeLog entries in the patch. Gnulib has a git merge driver called git-merge-changelog which helps merging ChangeLog entries should they not fit perfectly any more. > I am disappointed with myself for taking so long to get > to reading the manual straight through. I'm not sure if I can do anything to address this. :-) > I recall trying > to read it back when I first started looking at automake, > and remember it being mostly incomprehensible. It now > reads very well, though, and I can't think of any way to > improve its readability for the novice without making it > 3 times as long. (Nor am I sure that making it into > an introductory text is a good idea.) Me neither. > Removing superflous page break in automake.texi > > (Mixing Fortran 77 With C and C++): Removed a page break > that serves no purpose but to break the flow of the narrative. This looks good, but why stop here and leave the next @page in? Also, if you are interested in cleaning up the structure of the manual, Karl has an interesting comment that I haven't got around to addressing yet: <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.automake.bugs/4205>. I never found the time to go through the patch and think of a nice consistent markup that looks good both in info and pdf. (This patch would not be for branch-1-10, I don't want to change HTML file names arbitrarily there.) Cheers, Ralf