On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 03:21:52PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Gustavo Noronha 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-f
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Gustavo Noronha 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 technology, a
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 Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Sam Thursfield wrote:
> Hello!
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Cody Russell 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 yo
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Stefan Kost 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 doesnt want to
>>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
> 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
Tristan Van Berkom schrieb:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Cody Russell 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 s
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
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"
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
> > http://live.gno
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 feature/bug
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 lan
Hello!
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Cody Russell 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. If you have alr
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 rele
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 21:53 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> 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 w
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM, 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.
>
> Anyway, l
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 hand-mad
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) 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 information in the
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
> 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 ale
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, 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, d
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
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 small, and thats re
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Cody Russell 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 i
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Sebastien Bacher 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 and the c
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Cody Russell 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 write your entry wh
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 wo
Dan Winship wrote:
> Who are these people who read
> ChangeLog, and what is it that they're doing with it, such that NEWS is
> too brief, but a fully-VCS-ed source tree is unnecessary.
Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> The ChangeLog are quite handy for distribution packages, they have a
> list of the chan
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
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 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 n
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Sebastien Bacher 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 and the clo
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 listi
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 wou
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
Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, 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 t
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Vermeersch 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 wrote:
>> [...]
>> > So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git
>> > history on one end and NEWS o
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 sh
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:20 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, 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 tha
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, 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
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 --pret
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 n
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
R
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 is
Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:06 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
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 Pang
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 09:06 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> 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 t
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 gath
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
> > http://live.gnome.
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 wond
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 fi
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
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 22:23 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:54 PM, 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
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:54 PM, 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 wh
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
mac
52 matches
Mail list logo
