On Sun, 31 Dec 2017, Richard Stallman wrote: > > It is also clear in practice that there are certain kinds of changes for > > which the ChangeLog format is poorly suited, because those changes cannot > > readily be described or understood in terms of separate descriptions of > > what they do to each individual named entity affected, or because > > describing in those terms results in a very long description that is > > excessively duplicative of the diffs themselves (which can be seen in the > > VCS history). > > That is a very abstract description. I can't be sure what cases you > have in mind, let alone be sure that I agree with the conclusion > about those cases. > > Would you like to present a real or imaginary example? > >From that, I could tell whether I agree with this conclusion:
I gave an example in <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2017-07/msg00002.html> (bug-standards, Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:47:19 +0000), both of a ChangeLog entry and of the corresponding logical description (summary line plus two descriptive paragraphs) that actually explains what changed at a more human-comprehensible level. -- Joseph S. Myers [email protected]
