On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 17:38 +0200, Marcel van der Boom wrote: > While we're on the subject, out of curiosity, what is the rationale > behind having a ChangeLog file in the first place?
I'd almost think so too, but any output massaging probably wouldn't be entirely portable. Then there's also the issue of, what if you don't want every single rev to get a changelog entry? Things like translation updates, or feature branches that should have one entry at the end when they're merged, rather than 10 "implemented X" and 50 "checkpoint; 243/371 tests pass now" entries. But perhaps it would be good to reconsider exactly what should go in the ChangeLog? Right now it's almost exactly redundant with our commit messages, and partly redundant with other revision metadata. Maybe we should aim for a level about halfway between that and the NEWS file? > I would have expected the (massaged) output of 'mtn log' to fulfill > thate role. Also, see contrib/ChangeLog.sh . It uses 'ls certs' instead of 'log', but I think it does basically what your saying. Tim -- Free (experimental) public monotone hosting: http://mtn-host.prjek.net _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
