| 1 |
On Sunday 30 Jul 2017 11:02:41 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The general sense is that Changelogs represent the old way of doing |
| 4 |
> things. Most projects have gone away from having them, or they just |
| 5 |
> auto-generate them from git. I don't think most projects routinely |
| 6 |
> distribute them either - they just stick them on a webpage and only |
| 7 |
> people who care about them look at them. The linux kernel only |
| 8 |
> includes the changes in the last release in their change logs as well |
| 9 |
> (which is nothing more than a dump of git log). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
This has me a bit bothered, wearing my ISO9000 hat. Change logs seem to me |
| 12 |
to be the most important traceability tool we can have. Is it not essential |
| 13 |
to be able to demonstrate clearly how we got to where we are today? |
| 14 |
Preferably without having to jump through a load of abstruse hoops. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Regards |
| 18 |
Peter |
Archives