[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> There are a couple of scripts published (I think one of them is part of gnulib) > which automatically convert a git history, into a ChangeLog file. If the > commit messages have been composed thoughtfully, I believe such ChangeLog files > are indistinguishable from manually maintained ones. If that is true, it is a good method. Would someone like to determine what rules people should practice, so as to assure that the output gives us all the useful information that a properly written ChangeLog file has? (It doesn't need to be the same in form.) My concern, as I stated recently, is that there are some unusual (but not amazingly rare) cases where the automatic tools would omit some of the information. Maybe such a problem does not exist -- but let's verify that carefully. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.
