| 1 |
On 09-08-2011 13:15:01 -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > I guess I don't understand something here. If we aren't retroactively |
| 3 |
> > > changing existing ChangeLogs, and we're autogenerating things in the |
| 4 |
> > > future, where would these changes come from? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > so you want to retain all existing ChangeLogs? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Seems like a better idea to me, although it's not originally mine. Old |
| 9 |
> commit messages weren't written with the knowledge or intent that anyone |
| 10 |
> would be reading them, except maybe a dev or two, so we might lose a lot |
| 11 |
> of information. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
For your information: the Prefix tree [1] has ChangeLogs regenerated |
| 14 |
from CVS commit logs for all packages that are included from the CVS |
| 15 |
tree gentoo-x86 [2]. You can easily compare them against the original |
| 16 |
logs from a regular gentoo-x86 [3]. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> If/when we switch to git, we might want to reconsider that, since all |
| 19 |
> the handwritten messages will be old, largely irrelevant history by |
| 20 |
> then. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't follow your reasoning here. All messages that are old today, |
| 23 |
are also old when we switch to git. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[1] http://prefix.gentooexperimental.org/gentoo-portage-prefix/ |
| 27 |
[2] http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/alt/browser/trunk/prefix-overlay/whitelist.txt |
| 28 |
[3] http://prefix.gentooexperimental.org/gentoo-portage-x86/ |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 33 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives