From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: File names in ChangeLog entries Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:03:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: <831r2xt32t.fsf@gnu.org> <83ilw8sa9j.fsf@gnu.org> <835ys8s1gg.fsf@gnu.org> <87czmgruyc.fsf@gnuvola.org> <83h7bsqfxh.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7758"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Thien-Thi Nguyen , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 01 22:07:07 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1msWok-0001my-KQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 22:07:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40596 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1msWoj-0000cG-68 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:07:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34578) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1msWl5-0006QY-Gi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:03:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:57677) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1msWl2-0003ud-GE; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:03:18 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6217F801A8; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:03:13 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 02E648037A; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:03:12 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1638392592; bh=fj8rUjj/Bv2zlQHUCSfBa95L9Avos7SL0+6hmcARyUA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=AMXY8rD71Da3Au8XVuhVhMeEJepNewIw4p0sS6MDkx2zS7mkzm68/Zt61T6+QtPCS SKeNuCPcLQQfTv3H7RXuC17Wgp6KfWT1yZvLXiG9hJ7A5xKnV9RBPaoQA7OhyvCjZm Q3fTddPkiUZ0HeYNsRvKZ9RrAJoK0/htxJ1pNJmkHnT8nkNA+Fkve6t3ARnNvHe5dr +ignQYRuI1heK+h1buItfyhEQllfKgCui55IrsDsV4UxfAVFoFGakUlRMGo9x0a1Kx eO96FA4azT3moesNgXcCbR8YY2Y0PYkcRNQOp0aEhiqw4alDqRdVnnZGzd8DmLR2pY JDNvmg5vZaB7Q== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [216.154.30.173]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3400120851; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:03:11 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83h7bsqfxh.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 01 Dec 2021 21:32:42 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:280694 Archived-At: >> 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