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: Workflow to accumulate individual changes? Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:11:23 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87637of4y8.fsf@kobe.laptop> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1262254402 23295 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2009 10:13:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:13:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 31 11:13:14 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NQI1p-000252-Jr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:13:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48969 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQI1p-0006Sg-Ts for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:13:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQI0U-0005pe-Hb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:11:50 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQI0P-0005np-A4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:11:49 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52944 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQI0P-0005nm-4P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:11:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.10] (port=50987 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NQI0O-0006xq-O8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:11:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NQI03-00075A-EA; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:11:23 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Andreas Schwab on Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:21:05 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:119130 Archived-At: > From: Andreas Schwab > Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:21:05 +0100 > Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , > Emacs developers > > ChangeLog entries and commit messages serve a different purpose. > ChangeLog entries describe the "physical" changes, a commit message the > "logical" change. That is, the commit message describes the changeset > on a higher level than the ChangeLog entries. As such it does not make > sense to repeat the ChangeLog entries in the commit message. I agree with the principle (and I think most, if not all, of others do as well). But what does this mean in practice? Are you suggesting that the commit message should not mention the changes in individual files at all, just the general idea? If that's not what you suggest, i.e. if changes in individual files _should_ be mentioned, it will be very hard to resist the temptation of copying the ChangeLog entries, perhaps _in_addition_to_ the high-level description that we already asked to provide, a couple of weeks ago.