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 |