On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:09:45AM -0500, James Westby wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 08:39 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Guido Günther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.11.08.1419 +0100]:
> > > Does this look like a worthwhile extension to the current changelog
> > > format? For me it makes reviewing changes a lot easier.
> > I think this is very important to have, but why put them at the
> > front? Changelogs are for consumption by humans and machines, and
> > humans have it easier if they can just start reading on the left
> > side and get the information they want. Machines don't really care
> > very much.
> > So, similar to how we close bugs, how about
> > * fixed segfault during daemon startup (Closes: #7005180) [fed3f3d]
> > instead?
> You mean
> don't you?
You can abbreviate that (git-rev-parse(1), see --short).
> I don't think we need a VCS identifier there. I don't see why anyone
> would specify a bzr revision id in a git package.
> How would this differ from using annotate on the changelog? Do some
> people write the changelog at the end?
Using annotate on the changelog assumes you're committing the changelog
entry together with the actual change. That's not a workflow everyone
uses and IMHO makes little sense when using a DVCS since merging
branches from different people/places creates unnecessary conflicts in
vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list