1 |
On 19:42 Tue 09 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> On 09-08-2011 12:32:57 -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
3 |
> > > > Yeah, that's already on my draft agenda [1]. =) But we should still have |
4 |
> > > > a small set of options to choose from if we do vote to automate, so we |
5 |
> > > > don't sit around for another month or discuss it aimlessly for hours. |
6 |
> > > > Being prepared is what I'm hoping we can do here. |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > Ok, then I suggest simply adding ", don't bother about changes between |
9 |
> > > CVS log and ChangeLog" to both of your options. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > I guess I don't understand something here. If we aren't retroactively |
12 |
> > changing existing ChangeLogs, and we're autogenerating things in the |
13 |
> > future, where would these changes come from? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> so you want to retain all existing ChangeLogs? |
16 |
|
17 |
Seems like a better idea to me, although it's not originally mine. Old |
18 |
commit messages weren't written with the knowledge or intent that anyone |
19 |
would be reading them, except maybe a dev or two, so we might lose a lot |
20 |
of information. |
21 |
|
22 |
If/when we switch to git, we might want to reconsider that, since all |
23 |
the handwritten messages will be old, largely irrelevant history by |
24 |
then. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Thanks, |
28 |
Donnie |
29 |
|
30 |
Donnie Berkholz |
31 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer |
32 |
Gentoo Linux |
33 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |