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 . =) 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
If/when we switch to git, we might want to reconsider that, since all
the handwritten messages will be old, largely irrelevant history by
Council Member / Sr. Developer