2012/4/24 Julius Baxter <[email protected]> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Jeremy Bennett > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 17:18 +0100, Julius Baxter wrote: > > > >> ChangeLog? Why not put it into the nice, text-based asciidoc we now > >> have for or1200, so that it shows up automatically when we build the > >> doc, and then we need to keep only 1 place updated. > > > > Hi Julius, > > > > That's a different use case. The purpose of a ChangeLog is to see how > > the document has developed, to help you when working out the thought > > processes and time line for why a feature is there. More obviously > > valuable for code than documentation, but still very useful. > > Hi Jeremy > > I'm not saying drop all change time and explanation information, I'm > just saying that it would be convenient to place it there. Basically, > merge the ChangeLog with that document - they're both text-based and > it would be handy to have it in the spec document. I think we had a > long discussion about this before and I'm not sure we came to an > agreement on having a version of the core source and spec > documentation which was in sync. > > Julius > _______________________________________________ > OpenRISC mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc >
It's this thread that covered our changelog discussions http://lists.opencores.org/pipermail/openrisc/2011-August/000063.html There wasn't any formal agreement, but my interpretation of it is that we should be more careful with our commit messages (which we have been since then) and make a ChangeLog รก la kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges with all the highlights of the new release. No one really seemed to like having changes in the source files headers, so I guess we could just let them be, and remove them eventually. For the tar ball releases, I would like to have the usual ChangeLog, NEWS, README, MAINTAINERS files included, and I'm also all for reducing the number of sources for the changes, so why not just include the ChangeLog file in the generated asciidoc instead? That would give us a single source, and still include the changes when you read the spec -- Olof Kindgren ______________________________________________ ORSoC Website: www.orsoc.se Email: [email protected] ______________________________________________ FPGA, ASIC, DSP - embedded SoC design
_______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
