Re: master 5022e27: ; Do not overwrite preexisting contents of unread-command-events

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Cc: rgm@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 11:38:32 +0200
> 
> Well, the question is just what this entry should entail.  Every changed
> function and file?

Yes.

> That will be a rather large entry.

It's not a problem.  We have our share of such large entries already.

> Apart from that I don't think I need to "wait for the update to
> ChangeLog.2" since the complaint was that the log message was formatted
> in a way where it would not even cause an entry to ChangeLog.2.  So it
> doesn't really seem to matter all that much just when I'll update
> ChangeLog.2 manually.

Right.

> Well, the changes are mostly of the "similar minor change" kind, namely
> not completely obeying the same description.

Nevertheless, I think it should be possible to come up with some text
that would allow you to have a single entry for all of those changes.

> The main problem I have is that the invested work and the resulting
> space in the ChangeLog is not going to save anybody any time or effort
> since we are not talking about a feature here or normally user-visible
> changes in semantics.  And it's not particular to any package/feature
> either.  It's not the kind of change we are maintaining a ChangeLog file
> separate from commit messages for.

I think our rule is to have ChangeLog entries for all non-trivial
changes whose description carries significant information.  Basically,
anything that people might want looking up in order to understand why
was the change done.  I think your changes qualify.

> The reason I made that simple commit message really wasn't "oh, I'm too
> lazy to do a proper one" but rather "this would not even make sense".
> Obviously other developers disagree after the fact so I'll "fix" it.  I
> just have a hard time doing a fix that does not feel like making the
> situation worse than it is already.

Something like this:

  * file1 (func1, func2, func3):
  * file2 (func4, func5):
  * file3 (func6, func7, func8, func9): Minor improvements in how
  events are added to unread-command-events.

shouldn't make things worse, and should be fairly easy to write, I
think.