| 1 |
Steven J. Long: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> VCS commit messages are very different to the ebuild Changelogs ime. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Yes, but this does not even apply to the current gentoo CVS workflow |
| 6 |
(compare the cvs commit messages with the ChangeLog entries, e.g. for |
| 7 |
sys-apps/portage). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I would ask that you consider the different purpose of VCS commit |
| 10 |
> messages, vs ebuild Changelogs. The latter are terse summaries from |
| 11 |
> the admin perspective, and the former naturally tend to be more |
| 12 |
> code-oriented, especially when applied to bigger projects, and |
| 13 |
> especially with the ncremental-commit model that git fosters. (don't |
| 14 |
> rebase: just push, and use add -p if you have to break it up[2].) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The difference between admin perspective and developer perspective is |
| 17 |
very small in the context of ebuilds. Ebuild code is trivial and the |
| 18 |
rate of changes that don't affect the users directly (such as optimizing |
| 19 |
syntax stuff, improving code style etc) is pretty low when I look at my |
| 20 |
own ebuilds. |
| 21 |
The rest of the messages that do affect users are usually just "added |
| 22 |
missing dependency on sys-apps/foo wrt #12345" or similar which don't |
| 23 |
really need any sort of conversion to be understood by users/admins. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Either way, I don't think the discussion about Changelogs should *at all* affect the move to git; |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Correct, because this wouldn't even be a regression to the current CVS |
| 28 |
workflow. |
Archives