From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:44:47 +0200 Message-ID: <52e98fbe-260c-c367-b7a7-ab9f00db7891@yandex.ru> References: <56BE7E37.3090708@cs.ucla.edu> <4hd1rw1ubr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83vb50wxhv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y49vz4cg.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <87vb4zb0i4.fsf@gnu.org> <837fheuu6a.fsf@gnu.org> <83twkiteb3.fsf@gnu.org> <83lh5utbxb.fsf@gnu.org> <56DDD02A.20809@cs.ucla.edu> <83fuw2t2ue.fsf@gnu.org> <1ceba0e3-b8a7-393d-ce41-213aee11b7f8@yandex.ru> <83si01rn0y.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457459111 31852 80.91.229.3 (8 Mar 2016 17:45:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mthl@gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, johnw@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 08 18:45:09 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1adLgv-0004Ky-5R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:45:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36311 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adLgu-0005ZZ-Jc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:45:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41472) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adLgl-0005Rz-F0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:44:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adLgi-0006yN-6o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:44:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]:37099) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adLgi-0006yB-0w; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:44:52 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id p65so38112726wmp.0; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 09:44:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zn5w87tD6L+tylE/iKHygmf02rwoC6flaBsnbHGDn3c=; b=mtfToRLuHUR2he1V1+/4/T3W44SIyJctonfWJ182QmldnIribJf8Sf3mGd6sAPHKB0 6KCiFmq/2PenizSvC76DOhm8Ea815MJnWhDKsLNJrhN4+nhunn3HeEs/Gy67y5SQTqvR t2AUukEV0wL9jvGtQ5mxwBi+YnIH9qfpL1ul9jClaNQPADM+VhLDWXf9ejWKuXa030Si q5O1LTBKSjsjM+NwnySVpIFjJ51yMo0YOZDPQ7cJT+kwkTvjVsIzjvfDfEs/aGMp4IIX 1QcM2oG1Zskg8XuTcHXJM0IfbIl4X9PHaMvaf2Y5nR05LJGdWweeN4m8kAW9oa7uXgb3 vYiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zn5w87tD6L+tylE/iKHygmf02rwoC6flaBsnbHGDn3c=; b=QRipFGKqQbIVMfjxTUvKc9iCE98w0/yofm6JHDvup7fVHCJ7oRaEEzDgV+kBRDDTM4 QQXopz/bCCb3fhO+VfWiccBefSW40N5ImZKYrG1gC8Y0/WjebBWDoKxYfqlOU13J86o7 01saLRbgGnInA7WZMuoxo9mZRFMTmPPeQ0fn07JPKGs5rtsARNSPeeThEB5AM2/Nb7Vh wpDrgYjb0xyw8d6eK93FHjLAkJESgXXhz6ksc22EapKdgx4VyYpzlamPEnkBo5FkIvUb V3X8Fw/gq572bZotS/LvPw5aZNmSAl1tribF+kK7QENVz/boAZCjyxVvpK4HAf/21Hoi fzbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ2QUVN2kylqHPJcLgy/OfulalEjKQmIOzBSEIjPDgQpgbEiFYEsb1kVI48uyANJQ== X-Received: by 10.194.191.4 with SMTP id gu4mr14080317wjc.93.1457459091146; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 09:44:51 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.185] (static-nbl2-118.cytanet.com.cy. [212.31.107.118]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id et11sm4008959wjc.30.2016.03.08.09.44.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Mar 2016 09:44:49 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 In-Reply-To: <83si01rn0y.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201185 Archived-At: On 03/08/2016 05:45 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > You (and some others) say the format and the content in the log > messages are important, and I agree. But if we do care about them, > how can we NOT clean them up? Having them in their current state > means they cannot be trusted, which is worse than not having them at > all. That's true. But my motivation for using ChangeLogs stems from having people describe their changes in a strict format. If someone writes a wrong name or omits the "copyright-exempt" header, I could live with that. We should find out how much it is of a problem, though, legally speaking. >> Has the current experiment really sucked too much energy from anyone, aside from the implementors? > > Why do you think Glenn gave up? My bad. All right, Glenn gave up fixing errors. Isn't that because people made too much mistakes, and didn't bother to fix them? Even if we transition to the previous system, it will need the same people to fix their errors. >> Not in my experience either. I've still had collisions, and even when git-merge-changelog resolved them, it often put my entry in the middle of the file, whereas I usually needed it to be at the top. Leading to extra manual labor. > > That extra manual labor is very small, and it's still a rare case to > have that. A small price to pay for a clean and reliable solution. It's a bit hard to remember now, but I think I had to move my entry to the top more often than not. So, not a rare case. >> It was longer for me. But either way, it's more hassle for a random contributor than the current system. > > The current system is much more hassle for non-random contributors, so > much so that we risk losing them, something we cannot afford. Will someone decide to stop contributing to Emacs because our Change Log entries contain mistakes? That doesn't sound very plausible.