| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Which means it's the tools that expect reverse-chronological order that |
| 4 |
> must change. Either that, or people /that/ concerned about the |
| 5 |
> changelogs can simply switch to the git repos and use the existing git |
| 6 |
> tools to read their changelogs, as many (including me, as I regularly |
| 7 |
> check changelog entries, and now that I can, sometimes the actual diff, |
| 8 |
> on one or more packages at nearly every update) already are. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Setting aside the whole git-vs-rsync debate, I'd generally recommend |
| 11 |
that anybody interested in programmatic analysis of changes in the |
| 12 |
tree use git anyway, because there are far better ways to walk git |
| 13 |
commits/etc programatically than parsing changelogs. In python you |
| 14 |
can trivially iterate over commits, access the content of files, all |
| 15 |
the metadata, and so on. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm not against devs doing the work to provide changelogs for those |
| 18 |
who prefer them, but I'd just go right to git if I were writing tools. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Rich |
Archives