On 26-Aug-09, at 2:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Detailed descriptions, bug links, test instructions, and a link
back to the entire original review history are all part of
Chromium commits, yet we don't use ChangeLogs. I think
discipline about what to include + tooling to support it are
orthogonal to a project's use of a ChangeLog as the mechanism for
conveying this information.
[This question not necessarily just for Peter:]
If we removed the discipline of reviewing ChangeLogs, and the
tools that autogenerate a ChangeLog template and check for a
ChangeLog entry without an "OOPs I didn't get this reviewed"
message, what would we replace them with?
I can imagine a discipline where we ensure that pending commit
entries sit in a designated file in your tree, are made by a tool
much like prepare-ChangeLog, are included in patches by svn-create-
patch, are applied by svn-apply-patch, and are used by commit-log-
editor. That would ensure the entries go through the patch life
cycle just as much as currently.
Another possibility is to have a review site (bugzilla?) be the
canonical place for log entries until they get committed. At commit
time, a tool would pull from this location.
I want to add a +1 for the "hate changelogs" group. I have been
advocating this for about 4 years now. It's much more painful when
on a remote, slow link. Is it really a problem to generate the
ChangeLog files from the svn commit messages on a daily or weekly
basis? There are scripts for this.
--
George Staikos
Torch Mobile Inc.
http://www.torchmobile.com/
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
