On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Vincent Torri wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Andrew Williams wrote:
You can of course have both.
Generate a ChangeLog file from the subversion logs and have a subversion
hook update this everytime a change is made...
Would that keep everyone happy?
not really (for me). The svn log would pollute the ChangeLog file with
useless commits like a warning fix. Do that with eet (which is tiny...), and
you'll see what I mean.
examples from svn log in eet:
"endianess bugzors!"
"Bilious barnacles"
"fix the bitch"
"update"
"oops..."
"sssh"
"Silence"
etc...
if everyone would have done good ChangeLog entry from the beginning, why
not, but it's not the case. I would be ashamed to propose a ChangeLog with
such entries.
Seriously, when an important commit must be noted in the ChangeLog (and it
should not happen a lot when the lib is released), it takes really no time
for the committer to use moap to update the ChangeLog file. I can't
understand why using a new tool is so disturbing for some people, and why
they are reluctant to use such new tool, especially when the commands are so
simple.
especially when some guys here don't hesitate to use big tools like
valgrind, gdb, oprofile, write powerful shell scripts, use python and are
very good programmers in general. Just 2 little lines are really a big
challenge, it seems.
Vincent
Also I'm for using the right tool for the right task. svn log is not the
right tool, imho.
Vincent
On 30 Jan 2009, at 19:23, Vincent Torri wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
I really dislike ChangeLog files, they predate any source control
version. Now CVS/SVN/Git/Whatever nicely replaces that. So generating
it automatically is the way to go.
of course I disagree. Mainly because of an experience i had with
autotools: for the EFL, I had to check if I didn't use macros that were
too recent, or on the contrary if they were old enough to replace them by
newer ones. If I had to look at all the svn logs, i doubt that i would
have finished that work today (there are a lot of macro / features in
autoconf, automake and libtool).
On the contrary, I just opened the ChangeLog files, did a search in it,
and it was quite fast for me to find the informations.
That's why I think that, if it helped me, a changeLog can help other
people. Note that I agree with raster's position here: noting in a
ChangeLog only the most important changes. For example, even if I had
committed in eet repo (only formatting and autotools stuff, iirc), i
didn't modified the ChangeLog (Well, actually, i added one entry, to
mention that the compilation can be done with Visual Studio). So the
ChangeLog does not grows too much and has only important cahnges in it.
That's my opinion as a user of a tool. And i think that there are a lot of
users who don't know how to use cvs, svn or git and are quite happy to
have some ChangeLog files.
Vincent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
--
Ce message a été vérifié par MailScanner
pour des virus ou des polluriels et rien de
suspect n'a été trouvé.
Message délivré par le serveur de messagerie de l'Université d'Evry.
--
Ce message a été vérifié par MailScanner
pour des virus ou des polluriels et rien de
suspect n'a été trouvé.
Message délivré par le serveur de messagerie de l'Université d'Evry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
