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 05:46:13 +0200 Message-ID: <83r3fkpb3u.fsf@gnu.org> References: <56BE7E37.3090708@cs.ucla.edu> <4hd1rw1ubr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457495216 13126 80.91.229.3 (9 Mar 2016 03:46:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:46:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ingo Lohmar Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 09 04:46:48 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 1adV5E-00088A-Et for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 04:46:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38828 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adV5D-0002d1-Ug for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:46:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56018) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adV4Z-0001rR-Sl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:46:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adV4W-00006D-Ia for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:46:07 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55536) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adV4W-000065-ED; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:46:04 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3358 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1adV4V-0004OW-Me; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:46:04 -0500 In-reply-to: <87pov4achc.fsf@acer.localhost.com> (message from Ingo Lohmar on Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:25:35 +0100) 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:201230 Archived-At: > From: Ingo Lohmar > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:25:35 +0100 > > On Tue, Mar 08 2016 22:37 (+0200), Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Using Git is not a problem for me. The problem is that the > > information in Git log is unreliable. The other problem is that will > > never succeed in teaching new contributors how to make good log > > messages unless we have an easy way of fixing mistakes there. > > > Some arguments in this thread are repeated ad infinitum although they > don't seem to stand a little scrutiny. That's because some people don't seem to read the thread, and keep coming up with the same incorrect arguments time and again. > "git log" messages cannot technically be both immutable and > unreliable: At least there is some severely imprecise use of > language going on. You need to read the thread to understand what is being alluded to. "Unreliable" in the sense that its text includes mistakes and cannot be trusted. > In contrast to your opinion, it seems to me that fixing mistakes in the > Changelogs teaches a contributor who has committed with a flawed commit > message that it's not really important. They, or somebody else, can > clean up their (incl. possibly my) mess. As Oscar has argued, having > the original commit rejected (by means to be discussed, and only until > people have shown good judgment and discipline) teaches them that commit > messages matter. Emacs development doesn't work by requiring each commit be posted for review as prerequisite for committing, so what Oscar suggests is not possible. (Please don't ask why, it was explained many times already.) > The whole argument for Changelogs comes down to a) being an established > band-aid to clean up spilt milk, or b) providing a fixed-form summary of > things that can be obtained using the VCS (provided the humans or tools > wirting the Changelog are as "reliable" as the VCS). Find a better and more reliable way of dealing with the problems described here, and I'll be the first to agree not to reintroduce ChangeLogs.