Re: File names in ChangeLog entries

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> The first line summary should also summarize the files.
> No, it doesn't need to do that.

I think it should.

> And it frequently isn't even possible.

That sounds very odd.  Can you give examples?

> In any case, this is not our conventions (they are also not what the
> GCS say).

Conventions can be changed.  That's why I brought up this issue in the
first place.  I did mention this the last time we discussed the
conventions, but apparently it was either overlooked or ignored, whereas
I thought it was obviously accepted as not even needing discussion.

And indeed, I'm surprised it's controversial ;-)

> Because the problem is not with what CONTRIBUTE says, the problem is
> that Stefan and others don't WANT to do what it says.

For the record the problem for me is the following: I read the
`emacs-diffs` mailing-list but I don't read all the messages.  I filter
them based on the Subject, and having some idea of which part of the
code is affected is a crucial information for me to decide whether
I should look at the patch.

I can live with using

    * filename (func): Short description

    Explanation

and

    * filename (func): Short description

    Explanation

    * filename (func): Short description.

if that's what it takes to abide by the official conventions while at the
same time satisfy my own desire to help other people like me who need to
decide what is affected by a given patch by just reading the summary.

But I really wish we could change the convention so that I don't need to
suffer because other people don't include that info in their summary line.


        Stefan