On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Murray Cumming <[email protected]> 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.
Reminds me of my friend who insists that evolution is nothing more than hoax and when I try to educate him, he doesn't want to discuss it. :) There are simply two facts to be kept in mind here: 1. All information in the ChangeLog is redundant. 2. Maintaining a ChangeLog only and only realizes otherwise inexistent conflicts. It is as simple as that. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
