From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:55:39 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <56E071AB.8050008@cs.ucla.edu> 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> <56DE0F6A.6010207@cs.ucla.edu> <83pov5rmt6.fsf@gnu.org> <56DFD78F.40205@cs.ucla.edu> <56E06093.7050509@cs.ucla.edu> <83twkfo7ij.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457549766 11356 80.91.229.3 (9 Mar 2016 18:56:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 09 19:55:59 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 1adjGx-000533-Jt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 19:55:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43528 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adjGw-0006sK-K0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:55:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35906) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adjGo-0006s6-W1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:55:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adjGo-0006qU-0i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:55:42 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:46565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adjGm-0006py-OE; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:55:40 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D54160E8D; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:55:40 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id KzKbaVa1hNQf; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:55:39 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1B1160F68; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:55:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id xxslxaLLuDpf; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:55:39 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from penguin.cs.ucla.edu (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71AD5160E8D; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:55:39 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 In-Reply-To: <83twkfo7ij.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 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:201284 Archived-At: On 03/09/2016 10:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Who needs a history record one cannot trust? It's worse than having > no record at all. Any historian will tell you that you cannot trust historical records. Caesar's commentaries, Churchill's speeches, the Open Group Rationale, Emacs ChangeLog entries -- they're all riddled with errors, and sometimes have outright fabrications, and anybody studying them must take this into account. That's just life. (Though I do hope our ChangeLogs are more trustworthy than Caesar was....) There is a reasonable question about how much of our development effort should be devoted to sprucing up ChangeLogs after they're committed. I think this should be low priority, whereas as I understand it you would prefer that we boost its priority. Neither side is advocating untrustworthy ChangeLogs, or perfect ChangeLogs for that matter; it's mainly a question of where to allocate our scarce development resources.