1 |
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto |
2 |
<jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On 01-06-2011 19:50, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
4 |
>> The current situation is: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> (a) Not dire. |
7 |
>> (b) Not urgent. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> (c) has irked enough developers and users that people pushed council to |
10 |
> update the policy about the use of ChangeLogs. |
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
Yes, and I'm surprised that these same developers pushed towards a |
14 |
negative solution (kick productive people out) rather than a positive |
15 |
solution (move to git). |
16 |
|
17 |
>> And if we decide, hey, let's move to git instead of having this |
18 |
>> discussion, the current situation is also: |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> (c) A waste of everyone's time. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> So no, future plans are not independent of the current situation, and |
23 |
>> a move to git *is* a way to deal with the current situation. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> In effect, we kill (at least) two birds with one stone and prevent a |
26 |
>> lot of argument and bad blood. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> To be clear I support the goal to move our tree to git. |
29 |
> However, I'd like to point out that simply moving to git will leave us |
30 |
> in the same state. Assuming everyone agrees that git is far more useful |
31 |
> than cvs to check for changes in the tree, a simple but important issue |
32 |
> remains: the plan is to move the "development tree" to git, but to keep |
33 |
> the rsync mirrors for users. So the "move to git" doesn't fix the issue |
34 |
> for users or developers using an rsync tree. |
35 |
|
36 |
Arguably, if developers want to know the history they should use the |
37 |
copy of the git tree that they're supposed to be having. Relying on |
38 |
ChangeLogs for history is just silly if you have the complete history |
39 |
at your fingertips with git. |
40 |
|
41 |
> One solution that has been proposed before and that was raised again in |
42 |
> this thread is to generate ChangeLogs directly from scm commit messages. |
43 |
> That is already a solution with cvs, so moving to git won't help here. |
44 |
|
45 |
This is not true. One of the main problems of generating ChangeLog |
46 |
messages from cvs/svn is that you don't have much control over the |
47 |
`cvs log` output, cvs itself is extremely slow, and cvs maintains log |
48 |
information *per-file*. Hence ChangeLog generation in the format we |
49 |
want would be slow/impractical. There's tens of thousands of packages. |
50 |
How long do you think it'll take to generate ChangeLogs from cvs for |
51 |
all of them? |
52 |
|
53 |
Notice how every project that did a move to git from cvs/svn started |
54 |
auto-generating ChangeLogs[1]. One reason was that ChangeLogs will |
55 |
*always* cause merge conflicts, and they're duplicate information, so |
56 |
there's no point keeping them in the local tree. The other reason is |
57 |
that with git it takes a fraction of a second to generate a ChangeLog |
58 |
from the commit messages. |
59 |
|
60 |
1. https://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog |
61 |
|
62 |
> The same objections that have been raised about doing it for cvs, not |
63 |
> being able to use different messages for the commit message and in |
64 |
> ChangeLog (something I understand but admit have hardly used before), |
65 |
> are also valid if we move to git. |
66 |
> |
67 |
|
68 |
Not really. This problem has been raised and the solution is to add a |
69 |
'[trivial]' or '#trivial' etc tag to the commit message (either |
70 |
subject of body), and it won't be included in the auto-generated |
71 |
ChangeLog. |
72 |
|
73 |
The main issue that people have with not writing ChangeLog messages |
74 |
for removals is that developers can't figure out when, why, and by |
75 |
whom an ebuild was removed; because there's no ChangeLog entry, and |
76 |
cvs log/cvs diff is too painful to use. This makes it hard to fix |
77 |
breakage. |
78 |
|
79 |
There's a fringe issue of users wanting to know why an 'old' ebuild |
80 |
was removed while they're offline in a train or something (and don't |
81 |
want to keep a cloned git repo around), but that's not reason enough |
82 |
to kick our second-most-hardworking developer. |
83 |
|
84 |
In essence, the most basic issue here is *not* users who want to have |
85 |
all information offline, but the fact that /developers/ rely on |
86 |
ChangeLog for information because cvs log/diff suck. Note that the |
87 |
developer in question always wrote proper commit messages, so `git |
88 |
log` WOULD solve all our problems. |
89 |
|
90 |
Cheers, |
91 |
|
92 |
-- |
93 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
94 |
|
95 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |