| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:18:07 +0000 |
| 4 |
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 08:05:56AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > What would be the problem with renaming? IMHO it would be nicer to |
| 8 |
>> > keep the ChangeLog name for the autogenerated files and rename the |
| 9 |
>> > ones from CVS. We already have files renamed to ChangeLog-<year> |
| 10 |
>> > when they became to large, so we could just use ChangeLog-2015 to |
| 11 |
>> > stay within that scheme. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>> If we rename the old ChangeLog files from CVS to ChangeLog-2015, then |
| 14 |
>> we'll have both 'ChangeLog-2015' and 'ChangeLog' (generated from Git) |
| 15 |
>> containing 2015 entries. Worse, what happens when we hit 2016? Do we |
| 16 |
>> merge the old files? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> It's not perfectly clean but I don't see any problem here: |
| 19 |
> ChangeLog-2015 : all ChangeLog from CVS |
| 20 |
> ChangeLog: autogenerated from git |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> if/when there is a need to split git changelogs, autogenerated |
| 23 |
> changelogs will start from say, Jan. 1st 2016, and previous changes |
| 24 |
> will now be static. Merging CVS2015 and git2015 changelogs is just a |
| 25 |
> matter of running a script. Or just skip splitting them for 2016, and |
| 26 |
> start splitting in 2017, so that ChangeLog-2015 is CVS ones, |
| 27 |
> ChangeLog-2016 is git logs from Aug. 8. 2015 to Dec. 31 2016. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> IMHO this is still better than having ChangeLog stopping in 2015 and |
| 30 |
> ChangeLog.git starting from this date: Having ChangeLog-2015 from CVS |
| 31 |
> still carries partial information on the timeline. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
+1 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
You said it better than I could have. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Ulrich |
Archives