unofficial mirror of help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Changelogs, really useful?
@ 2010-08-06 16:47 Andrea Crotti
  2010-08-06 17:37 ` Deniz Dogan
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrea Crotti @ 2010-08-06 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
things) but more general about programming...

I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
would be exactly what I add in the changelog.

I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
changelogs?

I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
use the software should be really important, but the default style on
emacs is quite detailed.

How do you manage?
Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?

Thanks




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Changelogs, really useful?
  2010-08-06 16:47 Changelogs, really useful? Andrea Crotti
@ 2010-08-06 17:37 ` Deniz Dogan
  2010-08-06 17:45   ` Richard Riley
  2010-08-06 18:09   ` Andrea Crotti
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Deniz Dogan @ 2010-08-06 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrea Crotti; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs

2010/8/6 Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>:
> It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
> things) but more general about programming...
>
> I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
> I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
> commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
> would be exactly what I add in the changelog.
>
> I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
> revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
> changelogs?
>
> I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
> use the software should be really important, but the default style on
> emacs is quite detailed.
>
> How do you manage?
> Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?
>
> Thanks
>

I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.

Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
(Those poor people!)

-- 
Deniz Dogan



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Changelogs, really useful?
  2010-08-06 17:37 ` Deniz Dogan
@ 2010-08-06 17:45   ` Richard Riley
  2010-08-06 18:15     ` Andrea Crotti
  2010-08-06 18:17     ` Deniz Dogan
  2010-08-06 18:09   ` Andrea Crotti
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Richard Riley @ 2010-08-06 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:

> 2010/8/6 Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>:
>> It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
>> things) but more general about programming...
>>
>> I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
>> I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
>> commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
>> would be exactly what I add in the changelog.
>>
>> I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
>> revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
>> changelogs?
>>
>> I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
>> use the software should be really important, but the default style on
>> emacs is quite detailed.
>>
>> How do you manage?
>> Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
> put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
> enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.
>
> Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
> which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
> (Those poor people!)

Generate the changelog from the VCS in use when you Make the program.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Changelogs, really useful?
  2010-08-06 17:37 ` Deniz Dogan
  2010-08-06 17:45   ` Richard Riley
@ 2010-08-06 18:09   ` Andrea Crotti
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrea Crotti @ 2010-08-06 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:

>
> I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
> put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
> enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.
>
> Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
> which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
> (Those poor people!)

Well but if someone wants to know that the day X I changed the return
type of the function Y maybe he wants to read at the code and he's not
scared to use an scm.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Changelogs, really useful?
  2010-08-06 17:45   ` Richard Riley
@ 2010-08-06 18:15     ` Andrea Crotti
  2010-08-09  8:52       ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
  2010-08-06 18:17     ` Deniz Dogan
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrea Crotti @ 2010-08-06 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com> writes:

> Generate the changelog from the VCS in use when you Make the program.

That looks like a nice solution, but sometimes the message is general
("some small changes"), would that add one entry log for every tiny
function slightly modified?

Or maybe it could be an interactive thing where I choose only what is
really interesting?

I found a couple of scripts (one [1] there), I'll see if they make sense...

But it makes more sense to generate when I commit instead of when I make
the program I guess.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

[1] http://blog.cryos.net/archives/202-Git-and-Automatic-ChangeLog-Generation.html




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Changelogs, really useful?
  2010-08-06 17:45   ` Richard Riley
  2010-08-06 18:15     ` Andrea Crotti
@ 2010-08-06 18:17     ` Deniz Dogan
  2010-08-06 18:28       ` Richard Riley
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Deniz Dogan @ 2010-08-06 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Riley; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs

2010/8/6 Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com>:
> Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2010/8/6 Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>:
>>> It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
>>> things) but more general about programming...
>>>
>>> I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
>>> I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
>>> commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
>>> would be exactly what I add in the changelog.
>>>
>>> I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
>>> revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
>>> changelogs?
>>>
>>> I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
>>> use the software should be really important, but the default style on
>>> emacs is quite detailed.
>>>
>>> How do you manage?
>>> Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>> I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
>> put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
>> enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.
>>
>> Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
>> which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
>> (Those poor people!)
>
> Generate the changelog from the VCS in use when you Make the program.
>

Sometimes the changelog isn't the same as the commit message. The
changelog can be more vague in its description of what was changed
whereas the commit message may include many details.

-- 
Deniz Dogan



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Changelogs, really useful?
  2010-08-06 18:17     ` Deniz Dogan
@ 2010-08-06 18:28       ` Richard Riley
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Richard Riley @ 2010-08-06 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: help-gnu-emacs

Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:

> 2010/8/6 Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com>:
>> Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> 2010/8/6 Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>:
>>>> It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
>>>> things) but more general about programming...
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
>>>> I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
>>>> commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
>>>> would be exactly what I add in the changelog.
>>>>
>>>> I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
>>>> revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
>>>> changelogs?
>>>>
>>>> I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
>>>> use the software should be really important, but the default style on
>>>> emacs is quite detailed.
>>>>
>>>> How do you manage?
>>>> Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
>>> put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
>>> enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.
>>>
>>> Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
>>> which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
>>> (Those poor people!)
>>
>> Generate the changelog from the VCS in use when you Make the program.
>>
>
> Sometimes the changelog isn't the same as the commit message. The
> changelog can be more vague in its description of what was changed
> whereas the commit message may include many details.


Sure. I was just throwing it out there as a possibility in the
discussion. It's quite common in git circles to do just that and people
commit msg accordingly.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Changelogs, really useful?
  2010-08-06 18:15     ` Andrea Crotti
@ 2010-08-09  8:52       ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen @ 2010-08-09  8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrea Crotti; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs

() Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>
() Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:15:51 +0200

   I found a couple of scripts (one [1] there), I'll see if they make sense...

See also create-changelog (and HACKING) from the LibreDWG project:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/libredwg.git



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2010-08-09  8:52 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-08-06 16:47 Changelogs, really useful? Andrea Crotti
2010-08-06 17:37 ` Deniz Dogan
2010-08-06 17:45   ` Richard Riley
2010-08-06 18:15     ` Andrea Crotti
2010-08-09  8:52       ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2010-08-06 18:17     ` Deniz Dogan
2010-08-06 18:28       ` Richard Riley
2010-08-06 18:09   ` Andrea Crotti

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).