From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:32:44 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <56E0CEBC.80804@cs.ucla.edu> References: <56BE7E37.3090708@cs.ucla.edu> <4hd1rw1ubr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83vb50wxhv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y49vz4cg.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <87vb4zb0i4.fsf@gnu.org> <837fheuu6a.fsf@gnu.org> <83twkiteb3.fsf@gnu.org> <83lh5utbxb.fsf@gnu.org> <56DDD02A.20809@cs.ucla.edu> <83fuw2t2ue.fsf@gnu.org> <56DE0F6A.6010207@cs.ucla.edu> <83pov5rmt6.fsf@gnu.org> <56DFD78F.40205@cs.ucla.edu> <56E06093.7050509@cs.ucla.edu> <83twkfo7ij.fsf@gnu.org> <56E071AB.8050008@cs.ucla.edu> <83io0vo43x.fsf@gnu.org> <56E078DB.1020809@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1r3o248.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457573606 23872 80.91.229.3 (10 Mar 2016 01:33:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:33:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 10 02:33:14 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1adpTQ-0005ga-OG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:33:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45520 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adpTP-0004Tk-RT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:33:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47844) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adpTC-0004TU-Hm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:32:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adpTB-0005jZ-Nk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:32:54 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:41220) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adpT6-0005gP-2f; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:32:48 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8E0160E46; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:32:45 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id GWzID59p_3nJ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:32:44 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4748160D06; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:32:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 2VXK0JlfNfFl; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:32:44 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from penguin.cs.ucla.edu (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9868160814; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:32:44 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 In-Reply-To: <83d1r3o248.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201343 Archived-At: On 03/09/2016 11:57 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Like it or not, that is a form of historical research. > No, it's a very far cry from historical research. > I won't insist on calling it "historical research", admittedly a phrase that suggests bigger things than finding out why Emacs doesn't use setenv on "TZ". Still, the point remains that primary sources are unreliable in Emacs development, just as they are in any form of historical research. If someone ever gets around to writing a definitive history of Emacs (I'm looking at you, ESR!), then they'll have to take ChangeLogs with a grain of salt, just as you and I do in routine code spelunking. > That cost is much lower than any of the alternatives proposed so far, > including the current arrangement with ChangeLog.2. It worked for years. I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on costs. The old way of doing things was a constant irritation to me and to others. >> Regardless of the approach taken, there is also a cost to >> sprucing up the historical record > Since this is regardless of the approach, it shouldn't affect the > decision in this matter. No, they're still related. If sprucing up ChangeLogs is low-priority work that distracts us from other things, then it's not advantageous to adopt a technical approach merely on the grounds that the approach makes it easier to spruce up ChangeLogs.