> But this is against GNU policy for ChangeLog entries. Explanations of > the change should go into the source code, as comments.
No, explanation of the *code* should go into the source code, as comments. The source code is not the place for a history of the form: "In 1999, this code did XYZ, but in August of that year, we changed it to do ABC. And then in 2001, we decided to do DEF. But, as part of a major change in 2005, it now does PQR and then in 2014, we changed the names of the macros called". That doesn't belong in code, at least not in my opinion. That's what ChangeLogs are for. The code should say what it does and perhaps why. If there's some non-obvious reason why it can't do it some other way, it may be useful to note that we used to do it some way and that we no longer do because of some subtle reason, but that's very different from the sort of chronology above.
