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: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 10:00:05 +0300 Message-ID: <83ziprgutm.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83vb50wxhv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y49vz4cg.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <87twg2g86g.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83eg76n5h5.fsf@gnu.org> <87y45eeoor.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8337nmn2pd.fsf@gnu.org> <87shvmem2c.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87oa6adz3w.fsf@lifelogs.com> <577E056B.1060705@cs.ucla.edu> <871t35egck.fsf@lifelogs.com> <577E6697.8090603@cs.ucla.edu> <87furle9tc.fsf@wanadoo.es> <8737nkdy8a.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83h9c0i4wa.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh1ccgo6.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bn28i23s.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1468047667 31576 80.91.229.3 (9 Jul 2016 07:01:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:01:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 09 09:01:03 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 1bLmG6-0002t7-CB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 09:01:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49193 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLmG2-0006bD-Gb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 03:00:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40486) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLmFP-0006O4-4h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 03:00:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLmFL-0002om-CQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 03:00:19 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:36287) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLmFL-0002oe-92; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 03:00:15 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4179 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bLmFJ-0007Tr-7g; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 03:00:13 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 9 Jul 2016 01:58:48 +0300) 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: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205463 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 01:58:48 +0300 > > On 07/08/2016 06:25 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> From: Óscar Fuentes > > >> You rarely are interested on the whole file. vc-region-history makes > >> wonders when you care about part of the file (a function, for instance.) > > > > That's "git log -L" that I mentioned. It's startup time is not > > negligible. > > Personally, I've never found vc-region-history too useful (as opposed to > e.g. vc-annotate). I do use "git annotate" at first, but it will only show the last commit that changed the code you are investigating, and I find this too frequently to be some reformatting or other similar cleanup that is not really what I want. Then going back in history with "git annotate" is inconvenient, so "git log -L" is better. In any case, the startup times of 'annotate' and 'log -L' are comparable, and both are non-negligible. > >> Besides, having to jump to the bug is a nuisance > >> (some people mentioned that having the ChangeLogs readily available on > >> the tarballs is an advantage.) It is not necessary to duplicate the > >> whole discussion, but briefly mentioning what the problem was and why it > >> was decided to solve it this way would be helpful. > > > > This request is unreasonable. If nothing else, it will make the bar > > for contributing higher, not lower. The information is recorded in > > the bug discussion, and there's no need to reproduce it in the log > > message. > > We do encourage that, actually, though not require (bar for > contributing, etc). This can be especially useful when the issue is > not-to-complex, but the bug discussion is long. > > Mentioned near "rationale for a change" in CONTRIBUTE. Right, but this discussion is about the requirements, not about the stuff for which one gets extra bonus points.