| 1 |
On 27-10-2011 00:13:41 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Fabian Groffen schrieb: |
| 3 |
> > On 26-10-2011 23:03:39 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Fabian Groffen schrieb: |
| 5 |
> >>> You can see it has been removed, but you typically want to know why. |
| 6 |
> >>> That's the idea of the ChangeLog file. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> One of the arguments for logging everything in ChangeLog was that |
| 9 |
> >> extracting this kind information from CVS can be cumbersome. So, I would |
| 10 |
> >> not agree with "typically". |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I do not see your point. Does my sentence change for you if you remove |
| 13 |
> > the "typically"? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If the reason why you want ChangeLogs is avoiding having to get the |
| 16 |
> information about commit activity from CVS, then the proposal to make |
| 17 |
> exaclty that the minimal ChangeLog entry seems reasonable. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If in addition you always want to know about the motivation for the |
| 20 |
> commit, then it won't be sufficient I guess. But based on the previous |
| 21 |
> discussion on mandatory ChangeLogs I have not gotten the impression that |
| 22 |
> this was typically called for. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I still don't see your point, sorry. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 29 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives