On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:07 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 01:01:09AM -0700, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org
> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Mike Hommey<mh
+web...@glandium.org> wrote:
I've always wondered, in the days of atomic commits and advanced
SCM, why
fill changelogs at all ? Except for CVS, RCS or SCCS, any SCM
already
stores the log of changes. Keeping a Changelog in the SCM is both a
duplication of information and a stick to beat yourself when you
cherry-pick or revert changes, or merge branches.
When I've ask similar questions in the past, I've been told:
1) Changelogs are easier to search / archive / fix up than commit
log messages.
For search and archive, nothing prevents you to generate ChangeLogs
for
that purpose.
2) We can review the Changelog messages using bugzilla's review
system, but it's harder to review the commit log message.
Not if the patch contains the commit message in its header, like git
or mercurial do. Creating a script for svn, if it doesn't already
exist,
wouldn't be too hard, too.
Indeed, I never manually fill in a changelog and always use the script
to autofill it from my git patch. This means that everything in the
changelog (at least for me) is a duplicate of what is already in the
rcs which is a violation of the DRY principle. If we ever move off
svn I will propose that we should no longer maintain the changelog.
It is duplicated information and causes update/merge errors/hassle.
-Benjamin Meyer
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
