On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 21:53 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:01 -0500, Jonathon Jongsma wrote: > > > Same thing with the dates. The old ChangeLog only had dates, not > > time, > > > so there is imho no loss in just using dates in the autogenerated > > file. > > > > I agree with alex. The changelog should be easily readable. big > > strings of +++++++------ > > make it harder to scan. If we want that detailed level of > > information, we can always > > extract it from git on demand anyway. > > If anybody eventually thinks they have a decent way to generate > ChangeLogs then please do add it here so we can have some consistency: > http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog > > I'm interested to see the result, though I'm frankly resigned to the > entropy increase. I personally have never seen a generated ChangeLog > that was anywhere near as useful as a separate ChangeLog, regardless of > what other tools are available to do commits archeology, so my projects > will not change that practice just because of a VCS change. No, I'm not > interested in discussing it.
When gnome-common is unbroken, I have on my TODO list to write a macro for it, which apps can use. I maintain too many modules to fancy doing it for all of them by hand :) _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
