From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to drop ChangeLogs? Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 21:18:59 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87oa6adz3w.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <56BE7E37.3090708@cs.ucla.edu> <4hd1rw1ubr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <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> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467855375 8535 80.91.229.3 (7 Jul 2016 01:36:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 01:36:15 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 07 03:36:06 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 1bKyEY-00068z-K8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 03:36:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36798 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKyEX-000897-Tm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 21:36:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59079) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKxyG-0002Ye-97 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 21:19:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKxyC-00014U-1S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 21:19:15 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:49640) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKxyB-00014L-Qj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 21:19:11 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bKxy9-0003Yu-5p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 03:19:09 +0200 Original-Received: from c-98-229-60-157.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.60.157]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 03:19:09 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-60-157.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 03:19:09 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 60 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-60-157.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:f+o+BcHvxvjnySdlOBF185xbB3E= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:205294 Archived-At: On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 10:39:35 -0700 John Wiegley wrote: JW> I may be a strange one here, but I like the ChangeLog format for commit JW> messages. It's not unreasonable to ask a submitter to take some care and pride JW> in their description of the changes they've made -- after all, they've spent a JW> fair bit of time preparing the change itself. All right, that's very reasonable. JW> If writing a ChangeLog entry to describe a change increases the time spent JW> crafting a patch by 10%, and if this loses a contributor who would have JW> otherwise sent us code, I'm forced to wonder in what other ways have they've JW> been hasty, such that working on the commit message was too much for them. I disagree with this. Processes such as the one here are learned behavior, not something that identifies good vs. bad programmers. On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 20:23:32 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: EZ> That's already so. The number of times I had to reformat log messages EZ> for casual contributors is too large to remember. You just suggest to EZ> codify that, so they won't feel obliged to even try to format the EZ> messages as we want them. ... EZ> Sorry, I don't understand how this will work. Can you explain? Let's EZ> say I received a pull request, and the commit's log message needs EZ> reformatting. What next? The code doesn't get merged until the commit is up to our standards. So even if the ChangeLog format doesn't change, this is still a good way to prevent bad code or bad commit messages from making it into Emacs. The fixes are up to the contributor; the reviewer will almost never have to rewrite things on their own. EZ> My concern is about the manpower. If we don't have enough, this is EZ> going to be an exercise in futility. EZ> So I'd suggest first to have enough patch reviewers step forward and EZ> volunteer, before we start thinking about such a process seriously. I think we already do this to some degree in emacs-bugs, but without a process (so casual contributors often don't know where to start). I agree manpower is a concern. Perhaps a pull request process would actually take work off our shoulders by simplifying the steps so more people can be reviewers. On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:41:15 +0200 Paul Eggert wrote: PE> I have the sense that pull requests work better in projects with a large number PE> of occasional committers and a small number of full-time developers who triage PE> and review. Emacs development doesn't work that way: among other things, there PE> are no full-time developers, and we don't have enough reviewer time. So it may PE> not be a good fit for the pull-request model. (It might make sense to change PE> Emacs's development model but that's a larger topic....) Good points; Eli noted that as well. I don't have proof one way or the other, but my feeling is that it would be a change for the better. Ted