From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to drop ChangeLogs? Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 23:23:01 +0200 Message-ID: <838u1ut22y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <56BE7E37.3090708@cs.ucla.edu> <4hd1rw1ubr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83vb50wxhv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y49vz4cg.fsf@acer.localhost.com> <64a52598-ad53-498c-993c-67d7827dbdfc@default> <838u1uuuau.fsf@gnu.org> <878u1um2xl.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> <83egbmt2on.fsf@gnu.org> <87vb4ykn17.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457385802 23109 80.91.229.3 (7 Mar 2016 21:23:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 21:23:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Nikolaus Rath Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 07 22:23:07 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 1ad2cL-0001gK-LE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:23:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58689 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2cK-0003sN-TB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:23:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57967) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2cG-0003pW-0M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:23:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2cB-00042H-UB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:22:59 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52417) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2cB-00042C-Qr; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:22:55 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1760 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2cA-0005RE-Ag; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:22:54 -0500 In-reply-to: <87vb4ykn17.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> (message from Nikolaus Rath on Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:15:16 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:201082 Archived-At: > From: Nikolaus Rath > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:15:16 -0800 > > On Mar 07 2016, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> From: Nikolaus Rath > >> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:46:30 -0800 > >> > >> When I submitted my first Emacs patch, I was astonished when I was asked > >> to re-submit with my commit message essentially duplicated in the > >> ChangeLog. > > > > One is just a copy of the other, so I fail to see a problem, or a > > reason for astonishment. > > One just being a copy of the other is the reason for astonishment. I still don't see why. It's a simple request that is easily accomplished. I mentioned several other GNU projects that do the same. It's accepted practice. > >> How can it be an increased burden if reviewers have to review just one > >> thing (the commit message) instead of two (commit message and > >> ChangeLog)? > > > > No one reviews the same text twice, so doing this will not affect the > > review directly. > > Well, you are the one who claimed that it makes a difference. No, you've misunderstood what I wrote. > > Indirectly, it will make sure your patches are cleaner, because > > summarizing what you did will frequently reveal subtle blunders and > > things you forgot. > > We are talking about the advantages of making a copy of that summary, > after it has been written. You didn't read what I wrote about the current system. If we stop producing ChangeLog files, there will be no reason for having detailed enough commit log messages, and soon enough there will be no summaries.