add-log-time-zone-rule

add-log-time-zone-rule

[Nick Roberts]

Its no big deal, but setting add-log-time-zone-rule to t now in the ChangeLogs
seems wrong to me as most entries were made when it was nil.  Would it not be
better to do it "after the release" (TM) when new ChangeLog files will
presumably be created?  In any case, I infer the order changes were made from
the order they appear in the ChangeLog, not from the date of the entry.  CVS
logs seem to be in UTC if I want more detail.

-- 
Nick                                        10 Nov 2006 14:57:04 +1300 (NZDT)
                                                                 ^^^^^

Re: add-log-time-zone-rule

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 11/10/06, Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> wrote:

> Its no big deal, but setting add-log-time-zone-rule to t now in the ChangeLogs
> seems wrong to me as most entries were made when it was nil.

I honestly don't see a problem with that. All that happens is that new
entries are now correct (and increase monotonically).

> Would it not be
> better to do it "after the release" (TM) when new ChangeLog files will
> presumably be created?

I don't think that will be the case. Most probably we will split
existing ChangeLogs (at least the big ones) on the 2005 (or 2006) year
boundary. At least that seemed to be the consensus every time there's
been talk of splitting lisp/ChangeLog.

> In any case, I infer the order changes were made from
> the order they appear in the ChangeLog, not from the date of the entry.

On one hand, that's not strictly true because sometimes people does a
change and commits the ChangeLog entry hours or days later, sometimes
even a bunch of them.

On the other hand, dates on ChangeLog are not very significant
*without* "add-log-time-zone-rule: t" because they carry no timezone
info. There is no meaningful way to compare them; they're just vague
approximations. In UTC, at least the entries are correct about the day
they were made.

                    /L/e/k/t/u