Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:35:27
Message-Id: 4E417DC7.5000402@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request) by Donnie Berkholz
On 08/09/2011 09:15 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 19:42 Tue 09 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: >> On 09-08-2011 12:32:57 -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >>>>> Yeah, that's already on my draft agenda [1]. =) But we should still have >>>>> a small set of options to choose from if we do vote to automate, so we >>>>> don't sit around for another month or discuss it aimlessly for hours. >>>>> Being prepared is what I'm hoping we can do here. >>>> >>>> Ok, then I suggest simply adding ", don't bother about changes between >>>> CVS log and ChangeLog" to both of your options. >>> >>> I guess I don't understand something here. If we aren't retroactively >>> changing existing ChangeLogs, and we're autogenerating things in the >>> future, where would these changes come from? >> >> so you want to retain all existing ChangeLogs? > > Seems like a better idea to me, although it's not originally mine. Old > commit messages weren't written with the knowledge or intent that anyone > would be reading them, except maybe a dev or two, so we might lose a lot > of information.
Quite the opposite, as commit messages have always been targeted for developers as notes Where as ChangeLog has been NEWS to users So I would assume commit messages contain the more important information to keep the package maintaince going
> > If/when we switch to git, we might want to reconsider that, since all > the handwritten messages will be old, largely irrelevant history by > then. >