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 23:10:00 +0200 Message-ID: <83egbmt2on.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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457385021 10329 80.91.229.3 (7 Mar 2016 21:10:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 21:10:21 +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 22:10:16 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 1ad2Pv-0000PC-PQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:10:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58580 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2Pu-0001yh-T2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:10:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49655) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2Pe-0001xI-OT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:09:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2PZ-00071S-Oq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:09:58 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51885) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2PZ-00071J-Ln; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:09:53 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1738 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ad2PY-0007gN-Se; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:09:53 -0500 In-reply-to: <878u1um2xl.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> (message from Nikolaus Rath on Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:46:30 -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:201075 Archived-At: > 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. > 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. Indirectly, it will make sure your patches are cleaner, because summarizing what you did will frequently reveal subtle blunders and things you forgot.