On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Olof Kindgren <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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
Including the ChangeLog in the asciidoc sounds fine then. I just want to avoid multiple places for change information to go, and for that to be missing from the spec document - and this satisfies both! Cheers Julius _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
