You may be doing things differently, but I found that many commits don't make sense to mention in a human readable changelog. Many only partially implement a change, and others are just refactorings or style changes.
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Jeff Forcier <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Curt Micol <[email protected]> wrote: > >> git log --summary > CHANGELOG should be enough I would think. > > Yea, I noted in the updated docs (which I may not have pushed yet, > heh. left off last night writing up the installation page) I found git > shortlog, which works best for when you don't want the date info > (which, for now, I don't). Still had to editorialize pretty heavily, > despite my conscious effort when committing to have descriptive commit > messages. D'oh. > > -Jeff > > > _______________________________________________ > Fab-user mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user > -- Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, Christian Vest Hansen. _______________________________________________ Fab-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
