On 7/5/18, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > After 20 years of hacking on GCC I feel like I have literally wasted > days of my life typing out ChangeLog entries that could have easily been > generated programmatically. > > Can someone refresh my memory here, what are the remaining arguments for > requiring ChangeLog entries? > > I vaguely recall Jakub (or Alex Oliva??) mentioning that they were > desired for releases. If this is the case, may I volunteer to write the > necessary scripts to generate these automatically? > > It would be nice if we could have meaningful commit messages explaining > why we are doing things, and any list of changed files be generated on > the fly. > > Sorry, I'm getting old, and would hate to spend any meaningful remaining > time typing things that a computer can do for me. > > Aldy >
Many other GNU projects have discussed ditching/autogenerating ChangeLogs in recent years; see these other mailing list discussion threads for examples: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/m4-patches/2017-01/msg00010.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-03/msg00904.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-03/msg00180.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2017-07/msg00000.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-08/msg00064.html https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2018-02/msg00025.html (Some of them cross the month boundary in the archives, so you might have to click around more to get the whole story)
