| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Maybe one option would be to kill Changelogs and provide a script to let |
| 4 |
> people get git messages and reformat them in a way similar as current |
| 5 |
> ChangeLog files, that way people will still be able to save this |
| 6 |
> information for the future (if they won't have internet conection later |
| 7 |
> for example) and read it simply with "less" for example. With this |
| 8 |
> option, we won't need to provide Changelogs and distribute them but |
| 9 |
> people wanting to have them will still be able to generate them if |
| 10 |
> wanted (for example, just after updating portage tree) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Or they could just clone the git tree, and they can look at per-file |
| 13 |
logs anytime they want to. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I mean, sure, we COULD do this stuff. But, why? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It isn't like kernel.org has some tool that lets kernel users generate |
| 18 |
per-file changelog histories just in case they don't want to use git. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If somebody wants to build a tool like this by all means go ahead and |
| 21 |
do it. I just don't see it as something that should be a migration |
| 22 |
pre-requisite. That's just my opinion though. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives