From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to drop ChangeLogs? Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 22:21:51 +0200 Message-ID: <838u1ro10g.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83vb50wxhv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y49vz4cg.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <64a52598-ad53-498c-993c-67d7827dbdfc@default> <838u1uuuau.fsf@gnu.org> <878u1um2xl.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> <87fuw090k7.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83y49spuxt.fsf@gnu.org> <87pov4achc.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <83r3fkpb3u.fsf@gnu.org> <83lh5rps0t.fsf@gnu.org> <56E066BD.5050403@cs.ucla.edu> <87lh5rv7kk.fsf@red-bean.com> <83pov3o62y.fsf@gnu.org> <87bn6nv3yw.fsf@red-bean.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457554926 31535 80.91.229.3 (9 Mar 2016 20:22:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:22:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, johnw@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Karl Fogel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 09 21:22:01 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 1adkcK-0005Rn-AD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 21:22:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44023 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adkcJ-0005vp-Eo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:21:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40489) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adkc6-0005ve-Jf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:21:47 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adkc5-0000YM-Gk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:21:46 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:46242) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adkc0-0000U3-Nf; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:21:40 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4256 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1adkbz-0003o2-SS; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:21:40 -0500 In-reply-to: <87bn6nv3yw.fsf@red-bean.com> (message from Karl Fogel on Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:36:07 -0600) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:201313 Archived-At: > From: Karl Fogel > Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, johnw@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:36:07 -0600 > > > Writing ChangeLog entries is just one small part of that. It's no > > accident that people who don't want ChangeLog files more often than > > not don't want to write detailed commit log messages, either, and many > > times don't know how to write good documentation. Do we want to > > dispense with these as well? If we drop the ChangeLog files, there's > > no way we can explain why we ask for commit log messages in ChangeLog > > format, so the next logical step is to drop that as well, and we will > > then lose valuable information. We already are firmly on that path. > > How does dropping ChangeLog files cause us to not be able to ask for ChangeLog-style entries? I don't even need to explain that: there are already people in this discussion who said they'd like to use a less formal format. (You already asked who those people were, and Dmitry already pointed out who they were.) To me, the connection is very clear. If you don't see it, just trust the facts -- it is already happening. > You wrote of the importance of "ChangeLog files" to forensics, but having that information in git commit messages is exactly equivalent (I use it for forensics all the time, in lots of projects). Once again, you take a part of the argument and try to analyze it separately. The point was that if we start on the slippery slope of saying the mistakes in the log messages are unimportant, we will eventually lose both the information in the Git log records and the ability to produce ChangeLog files. IOW, it's fortress -- if you dismantle one of its bastions, the others will soon fall as well. The only way to avoid that is to hold all of them. > Do you see now why it at least looks like you're conflating these two different things? No. There are different aspects to this issue, and I described them one after the other. Sometimes they are only loosely related, sometimes they are more tightly coupled. This is the best way I could express my thoughts. Since English is not the first language for either of us, let's just agree that I failed to write in a style that would allow you to better understand. Once again, if there's a way to have the information in Git such that a correct log could be generated from it, it would be fine with me, and keeping the ChangeLog files in the repository won't be necessary, as far as I'm concerned. But so far, keeping the files looks like the cheapest way of satisfying all the requirements. I understand the psychological effect of "going the old ways", but this is a practical matter for me, not a religious one, and I'm looking for a practical solution that would allow us to continue keeping an accurate accord of the development history with as little overhead as possible. If the best alternative is those "old ways", I have no problem with that.