On 21 Mar 2015 20:19, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 3/16/15 4:54 PM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote: > > I know that some people are interested in a more detailed commit history in > > bash's git repository. After all, it's easier for all of us to just learn to > > use a tool, and use that for everything. > > > > The changelog files distributed with bash are useful, *but*, I claim that > > it'd > > be more useful to use the facilities that git provides for this. Because, it > > already has many useful things, like bisect, blame, log, and so on, that > > only > > work properly if you follow the good practice of making "logical commits". > > I'm interested in how well this turns out. I'm also interested in how > useful you find the changelog entries, since I try to make them very > detailed.
i love very detailed changelogs, but their up-front usefulness is curtailed when they can't be clearly attributed to file changes. this is why the idiom of one logical change per git commit works out nicely -- when there's a problem, you've got specific commits & their reasons, and you can use git bisect to help automate tracking down regressions. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature