1 |
On 02-06-2011 17:15:11 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
2 |
> > - no discussion on what to include or not (everything is in there) |
3 |
> |
4 |
> In git, we can make git log skip commit messages while generating the |
5 |
> ChangeLog, so this is incorrect. See section "Commit Limiting" in git |
6 |
> log --help. |
7 |
|
8 |
Assuming this is actually desirable, what rules would you suggest here? |
9 |
|
10 |
> > Simple cons I see mentioned: |
11 |
> > - useless information on removals of ebuilds/files |
12 |
> > - useless information on whitespace changes |
13 |
> |
14 |
> None of these are valid with Commit Limiting and a tag such as |
15 |
> '[trivial]' in the commit message subject. |
16 |
|
17 |
By allowing this, "[trivial] old" is bringing you back to current policy |
18 |
("commont sense") problems. |
19 |
|
20 |
> All these problems are fixed if we don't re-generate the *existing* |
21 |
> ChangeLogs. We should simply archive the existing ChangeLog, and |
22 |
> append to it after the move to git. |
23 |
|
24 |
Fair suggestion, I didn't consider at first. |
25 |
|
26 |
> Infact, if you do the same experiment on the openrc ChangeLog, you'll |
27 |
> see that it's too much work to regenerate the current ChangeLog |
28 |
> because a few commits managed to change the encoding of names in the |
29 |
> file, and a reverse-patch had to be applied to fix it. A number of |
30 |
> developers have made this mistake, and it shows up across the tree. |
31 |
|
32 |
I just created openrc's ChangeLog (attached to this mail). In what way |
33 |
exactly is it too much work? It's just a ChangeLog like many others, e.g.: |
34 |
|
35 |
| - 06 Jan 2011; William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> openrc-9999.ebuild: |
36 |
| - remove /etc/init.d/{depscan,runscript}.sh for bug #347483. |
37 |
| + 07 Jan 2011; Bob the Builder <williamh@g.o> openrc-9999.ebuild: |
38 |
| + Fix bug #347483 -- remove broken symlinks for depscan.sh and runscript.sh. |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
> In git, there's no harm with making commit messages verbose, so we |
42 |
|
43 |
Why is this harmful with the current system? |
44 |
|
45 |
> > - a clear policy is necessary on what is going in the ChangeLog and what |
46 |
> > not (like the current "common sense" discussions going on and the |
47 |
> > updated devmanual) |
48 |
> |
49 |
> However, with git the issue is simplified because then developers will |
50 |
> stop relying on ChangeLogs for information, and ChangeLogs will be |
51 |
> used entirely to convey information to users. |
52 |
|
53 |
I don't see how that simplifies. I only see how that would completely |
54 |
change things/intents. Can you elaborate? |
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
Fabian Groffen |
59 |
Gentoo on a different level |