| 1 |
On 02-06-2011 17:15:11 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> > - no discussion on what to include or not (everything is in there) |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> In git, we can make git log skip commit messages while generating the |
| 5 |
> ChangeLog, so this is incorrect. See section "Commit Limiting" in git |
| 6 |
> log --help. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Assuming this is actually desirable, what rules would you suggest here? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > Simple cons I see mentioned: |
| 11 |
> > - useless information on removals of ebuilds/files |
| 12 |
> > - useless information on whitespace changes |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> None of these are valid with Commit Limiting and a tag such as |
| 15 |
> '[trivial]' in the commit message subject. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
By allowing this, "[trivial] old" is bringing you back to current policy |
| 18 |
("commont sense") problems. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> All these problems are fixed if we don't re-generate the *existing* |
| 21 |
> ChangeLogs. We should simply archive the existing ChangeLog, and |
| 22 |
> append to it after the move to git. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Fair suggestion, I didn't consider at first. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Infact, if you do the same experiment on the openrc ChangeLog, you'll |
| 27 |
> see that it's too much work to regenerate the current ChangeLog |
| 28 |
> because a few commits managed to change the encoding of names in the |
| 29 |
> file, and a reverse-patch had to be applied to fix it. A number of |
| 30 |
> developers have made this mistake, and it shows up across the tree. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I just created openrc's ChangeLog (attached to this mail). In what way |
| 33 |
exactly is it too much work? It's just a ChangeLog like many others, e.g.: |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
| - 06 Jan 2011; William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> openrc-9999.ebuild: |
| 36 |
| - remove /etc/init.d/{depscan,runscript}.sh for bug #347483. |
| 37 |
| + 07 Jan 2011; Bob the Builder <williamh@g.o> openrc-9999.ebuild: |
| 38 |
| + Fix bug #347483 -- remove broken symlinks for depscan.sh and runscript.sh. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> In git, there's no harm with making commit messages verbose, so we |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Why is this harmful with the current system? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> > - a clear policy is necessary on what is going in the ChangeLog and what |
| 46 |
> > not (like the current "common sense" discussions going on and the |
| 47 |
> > updated devmanual) |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> However, with git the issue is simplified because then developers will |
| 50 |
> stop relying on ChangeLogs for information, and ChangeLogs will be |
| 51 |
> used entirely to convey information to users. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I don't see how that simplifies. I only see how that would completely |
| 54 |
change things/intents. Can you elaborate? |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 59 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives