On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 21:15 +0200, Olof Kindgren wrote: 
> It's this thread that covered our changelog discussions
> http://lists.opencores.org/pipermail/openrisc/2011-August/000063.html

Hi Olof,

Good pointer - I've just re-read and there was a lot of good stuff in
that discussion. I see I argued for keeping the ChangeLog for
documentation in the revision history of the document (one place
principle).

> 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.

So long as we keep that discipline, then it's fine. The jaded
engineering manager in me knows that commit messages are one of those
things (like testing and documentation) that tend to get "left behind"
unless you always keep focussed on them!

> 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

That's a clearer explanation - I misunderstood the earlier message and
agree with this.

ChangeLog, NEWS, README etc are requirements for the FSF GNU process, so
we don't *have* to use them for the RTL. Personally I think they ensure
important stuff is properly included. In particular ChangeLog and NEWS
are both histories but for different readers (developers and users
respectively).

Best wishes,


Jeremy 
-- 
Tel:      +44 (1590) 610184
Cell:     +44 (7970) 676050
SkypeID: jeremybennett
Email:   [email protected]
Web:     www.embecosm.com

_______________________________________________
OpenRISC mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc

Reply via email to