lisp/ChangeLog

lisp/ChangeLog

[Nick Roberts]

The ChangeLog in the lisp directory has got large again and takes a long time
to commit.  I realise that a release is imminent but back in the real world
its not.  Can we split it again, like last time, to make commits quicker?

Nick

lisp/ChangeLog

[Nick Roberts]

lisp/ChangeLog is not only the largest file (over 1MB) but it's also the most
frequently checked in.  For those like me, who are too tight to pay for
broadband, it takes a long time to commit (over four minutes using -z3).  The
scaling seems worse than linear or perhaps I'm just getting more grumpy in my
old age.  I realise that we might no want to split it because the release, like
tomorrow, is not far away but can we agree after the release to change it
annually e.g ChangeLog-2006, ChangeLog-2007 etc.  This is what GDB do and it's
less arbitrary.  I estimate that for Emacs it will result in files that are
about 500kB in size, which is plenty big enough.

Nick

Re: lisp/ChangeLog

[Richard M. Stallman]

I think it would be ok to split it at the start of 2005.
Could someone please do that?

Re: lisp/ChangeLog

[Nick Roberts]

 > I think it would be ok to split it at the start of 2005.
 > Could someone please do that?

I've done this.  I'll try to remember to move ChangeLog to ChangeLog-2005 at
the end of the year.  The newly created ChangeLog.11 doesn't currently have
an arch-tag but ISTR these get generated automatically.

Nick

Re: lisp/ChangeLog

[Richard M. Stallman]

    I've done this.  I'll try to remember to move ChangeLog to ChangeLog-2005 at
    the end of the year.

Please don't do that.  I don't think it is a good idea to make
a split so close to the current date, or close to the release
(if it has not happened yet).

Re: lisp/ChangeLog

[Juanma Barranquero]

lisp/ChangeLog it's again overweight, with an unhealthy 1,047 KiB and counting.

The 2005 stuff should be moved to lisp/ChangeLog.12; that would still
leave lisp/ChangeLog with a very sizable 352 KiB.

Any objection?

                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: lisp/ChangeLog

[David Kastrup]

"Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> lisp/ChangeLog it's again overweight, with an unhealthy 1,047 KiB
> and counting.
>
> The 2005 stuff should be moved to lisp/ChangeLog.12; that would still
> leave lisp/ChangeLog with a very sizable 352 KiB.
>
> Any objection?

I think lisp/ChangeLog should _at least_ contain all the stuff that
happened since the last release.

Yes, the current size is a nuisance.  I propose trimming it by
finishing the release, then splitting.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: lisp/ChangeLog

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 10/25/06, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> I think lisp/ChangeLog should _at least_ contain all the stuff that
> happened since the last release.

AFAIK, that's *not* the case right now, if you're talking about relevant stuff.

I don't see what is so special in the changes between 21.4 (which was
a security-fix release, from a branch) and now. Unless I'm mistaken,
the last "new stuff" release was in 2001:

  2005-02-06  21.4
  2003-03-18  21.3
  2002-03-16  21.2
  2001-10-20  21.1

So, are you proposing to merge all changes from October 2001 on in
lisp/ChangeLog? :)

I'm only teasing, of course, but the fact is, ChangeLogs are mainly to
document changes (which works even if they're split) and as an aid to
us... and in that last case, if you need to search for changes to any
piece of code, you *already* have to search in more than one ChangeLog
file.

                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: lisp/ChangeLog

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> I think lisp/ChangeLog should _at least_ contain all the stuff that
> happened since the last release.

In principle, I agree, but lisp changes from 21.1 -> 22.1 are already
split from ChangeLog into ChangeLog.10 and ChangeLog.11, so adding
ChangeLog.12 (containing the 2005 changes) seems like a good idea.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: lisp/ChangeLog

[David Kastrup]

storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> I think lisp/ChangeLog should _at least_ contain all the stuff that
>> happened since the last release.
>
> In principle, I agree, but lisp changes from 21.1 -> 22.1 are already
> split from ChangeLog into ChangeLog.10 and ChangeLog.11, so adding
> ChangeLog.12 (containing the 2005 changes) seems like a good idea.

We really should release more often...

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: lisp/ChangeLog

[Richard Stallman]

    lisp/ChangeLog it's again overweight, with an unhealthy 1,047 KiB and counting.

    The 2005 stuff should be moved to lisp/ChangeLog.12; that would still
    leave lisp/ChangeLog with a very sizable 352 KiB.

    Any objection?

Please don't move it now.