On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 12:17 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
But that's just a gut feeling and maybe it's wrong. The point is,
ChangeLogs were invented back when RCS-files-on-an-NFS-server was the
pinnacle of version control technology, and maybe what was most useful
then isn't what's most useful
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Gustavo Noronha g...@gnome.org wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 12:17 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
But that's just a gut feeling and maybe it's wrong. The point is,
ChangeLogs were invented back when RCS-files-on-an-NFS-server was the
pinnacle of version control
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Tristan Van Berkom t...@gnome.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
zee...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Dude, we have moved to git and you are still talking of versioned
ChangeLog and favoring large patches?
With a tool like git, you
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Stefan Kost enso...@hora-obscura.de wrote:
Tristan Van Berkom schrieb:
You always post ChangeLogs diffs with large patches, large patches
generally come to the maintainer in the form of a patch, with a single
changelog entry, the maintainer reviewing a branch
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Sam Thursfield sss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Cody Russell brats...@gnome.org wrote:
No, but the point is that if you edit some code and someone else has
made changes to some code elsewhere in the repo, and you merge their
work
Tristan Van Berkom schrieb:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Cody Russell brats...@gnome.org wrote:
[]
Yeah, but the thing that sucks about versioned ChangeLogs is
merging/rebasing your code. Typically you always leave writing a
ChangeLog last for this reason, but it just makes so
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 23:13 +0200, Garrett LeSage wrote:
In fact, you probably should have a file which would be updated as
developers churn along (distributing the effort over time), where each
big notable feature/bugfix/etc. is recorded as a line in the file
whenever it officially lands.
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 09:36 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 23:13 +0200, Garrett LeSage wrote:
In fact, you probably should have a file which would be updated as
developers churn along (distributing the effort over time), where each
big notable
Le samedi 18 avril 2009, à 21:54 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
Hey,
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git
on demand. Those macros have been modified and gathered in
http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog to only generate ChangeLog for make
dist. I
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 16:47 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le samedi 18 avril 2009, à 21:54 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
Hey,
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git
on demand. Those macros have been modified and gathered in
Le mercredi 22 avril 2009, à 15:56 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 16:47 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le samedi 18 avril 2009, à 21:54 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
Hey,
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git
on demand.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Cody Russell brats...@gnome.org wrote:
[]
Yeah, but the thing that sucks about versioned ChangeLogs is
merging/rebasing your code. Typically you always leave writing a
ChangeLog last for this reason, but it just makes so much more sense to
be able to
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Tristan Van Berkom t...@gnome.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Cody Russell brats...@gnome.org wrote:
[]
Yeah, but the thing that sucks about versioned ChangeLogs is
merging/rebasing your code. Typically you always leave writing a
ChangeLog
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
zee...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Dude, we have moved to git and you are still talking of versioned
ChangeLog and favoring large patches?
With a tool like git, you should be at least able to generate a single
reviewable patch, large or
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 13:26 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Versioned ChangeLog is a matter of trust, Id personally rather
take care of it and revision it by hand, I didnt ask other people
to do so, this is what I will do though (also, merging changes
in a ChangeLog cannot be difficlult,
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
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zee...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
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
Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Sure,
on the other hand projects with ChangeLogs that are hand-tended
to are, in my personal experience richer than logs of arbitrary commits,
if only by the simple virtue of forcing you to spend time caring for it.
I use ChangeLogs a lot. My preference for
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Tristan Van Berkom t...@gnome.org wrote:
Sure,
on the other hand projects with ChangeLogs that are hand-tended
to are, in my personal experience richer than logs of arbitrary commits,
if only by the simple virtue of forcing you to spend time caring for it.
On 04/21/2009 10:23 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
1. All information in the ChangeLog is redundant.
2. Maintaining a ChangeLog only and only realizes otherwise
inexistent conflicts.
Agreed.
You could do what we've been doing in a project of mine:
Auto-generating the changelogs on
Hello!
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Cody Russell brats...@gnome.org wrote:
No, but the point is that if you edit some code and someone else has
made changes to some code elsewhere in the repo, and you merge their
work into yours.. then maybe you have to fix some conflicts, but maybe
not.
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 21:54 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Hey,
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git on
demand. Those macros have been modified and gathered in
http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog to only generate ChangeLog for make
dist. I wonder what
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 12:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 21:54 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Hey,
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git on
demand. Those macros have been modified and gathered in
On 04/20/2009 09:02 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 12:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 21:54 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Hey,
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git on
demand. Those macros have been modified and
, the autogenerated ChangeLog
file will contain *all* post-git conversion changes, and especially with
micro-commits this will be a lot, so it will eventually be quite large.
So, it would be nice to do whatever we can to make our tarballs smaller
that doesn't have a major impact on the usability
anyway.
I like the more verbose format clearly showing which changes are big and which
are small.
Well, I don't really disagree that its nice to know. However, all such
info is readily availible in git, and can be posted in e.g. a release
mail for all the recent changes. However, the autogenerated
On 04/20/2009 10:00 AM, Dan Winship wrote:
Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:06 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
I like the more verbose format clearly showing which changes are big and which
are small.
Well, I don't really disagree that its nice to know. However, all such
info
Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:06 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
I like the more verbose format clearly showing which changes are big and
which
are small.
Well, I don't really disagree that its nice to know. However, all such
info is readily availible in git
Right.
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:00 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:06 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
I like the more verbose format clearly showing which changes are big and
which
are small.
Well, I don't really disagree that its nice to know.
Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:00 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
Here's something to generate a fairly traditional-looking ChangeLog
(though working on the assumption that you're doing the subject vs body
split in your git commit messages):
git log --date=short
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dan Winship d...@gnome.org wrote:
[...]
So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
history on one end and NEWS on the other? Who are the people who need
more information than NEWS gives, but who would not want to actually
check out
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:20 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dan Winship d...@gnome.org wrote:
[...]
So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
history on one end and NEWS on the other? Who are the people who need
more
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 14:02 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Could we get the ChangeLog generation added as a macro to gnome-common?
There's a bug for it, but no apparent activity (yet):
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=579279
Philip
That would make it easier, and more consistent. We
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Vermeersch ru...@savanne.be wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:20 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dan Winship d...@gnome.org wrote:
[...]
So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
history
Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dan Winship d...@gnome.org wrote:
[...]
So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
history on one end and NEWS on the other? Who are the people who need
more information than NEWS gives, but who would not
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:58 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
history on one end and NEWS on the other? Who are the people who need
more information than NEWS gives, but who would not want to actually
check out the source tree,
On 04/20/2009 12:45 PM, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:58 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
history on one end and NEWS on the other? Who are the people who need
more information than NEWS gives, but who
Le lundi 20 avril 2009 à 12:17 -0400, Dan Winship a écrit :
Who are these people who read ChangeLog
Hi,
The ChangeLog are quite handy for distribution packages, they have a
list of the changes you can look at quickly and the closed bug numbers.
Usually NEWS summary are either not there or
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Sebastien Bacher seb...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Le lundi 20 avril 2009 à 12:17 -0400, Dan Winship a écrit :
Who are these people who read ChangeLog
Hi,
The ChangeLog are quite handy for distribution packages, they have a
list of the changes you can look at quickly
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 12:17 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dan Winship d...@gnome.org wrote:
[...]
So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
history on one end and NEWS on the other? Who are the people
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 15:37 -0400, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote:
But that's just a gut feeling and maybe it's wrong. The point is,
ChangeLogs were invented back when RCS-files-on-an-NFS-server was the
pinnacle of version control technology, and maybe what was most useful
then isn't what's
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 22:23 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from
git on
demand. Those macros have been modified and gathered in
http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog to only generate ChangeLog for
make
dist. I wonder what
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Cons:
- Have to modify autogen.sh to create an empty ChangeLog, or pass the
foreign flag to automake
We really ought to be passing foreign anyway. No one benefits from
having people be forced to create 0-length README files. (And if we want
to say but people should
On 04/19/2009 11:34 AM, Dan Winship wrote:
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Cons:
- Have to modify autogen.sh to create an empty ChangeLog, or pass the
foreign flag to automake
We really ought to be passing foreign anyway. No one benefits from
having people be forced to create 0-length README
Hey,
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git on
demand. Those macros have been modified and gathered in
http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog to only generate ChangeLog for make
dist. I wonder what people actually want to have, so I can work on canonical
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
Hey,
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git on
demand. Those macros have been modified and gathered in
http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog to only generate ChangeLog for make
dist. I
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 22:23 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
Hey,
I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git on
demand. Those macros have been modified and gathered in
47 matches
Mail list logo
