| 1 |
El mar, 16-09-2014 a las 09:55 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Maybe one option would be to kill Changelogs and provide a script to let |
| 5 |
> > people get git messages and reformat them in a way similar as current |
| 6 |
> > ChangeLog files, that way people will still be able to save this |
| 7 |
> > information for the future (if they won't have internet conection later |
| 8 |
> > for example) and read it simply with "less" for example. With this |
| 9 |
> > option, we won't need to provide Changelogs and distribute them but |
| 10 |
> > people wanting to have them will still be able to generate them if |
| 11 |
> > wanted (for example, just after updating portage tree) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Or they could just clone the git tree, and they can look at per-file |
| 14 |
> logs anytime they want to. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I mean, sure, we COULD do this stuff. But, why? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It isn't like kernel.org has some tool that lets kernel users generate |
| 19 |
> per-file changelog histories just in case they don't want to use git. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If somebody wants to build a tool like this by all means go ahead and |
| 22 |
> do it. I just don't see it as something that should be a migration |
| 23 |
> pre-requisite. That's just my opinion though. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> -- |
| 26 |
> Rich |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I don't consider it a pre-requisite either, was only trying to give an |
| 30 |
option to still tell people how to get a ChangeLog similar to current |
| 31 |
ones easily (as looks like they are used a lot per the past |
| 32 |
discussion :/) I remember something similar was done in the past when |
| 33 |
gnome stuff moved to git: |
| 34 |
https://wiki.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
But I guess once we get habituated to simply review something equivalent |
| 37 |
to https://git.gnome.org/browse/ not many people will miss the old |
| 38 |
Changelogs ;) |
Archives