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.
>