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: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:55:17 +0200 Message-ID: <83lh5qn7oq.fsf@gnu.org> 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> <56E0CEBC.80804@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457592930 10193 80.91.229.3 (10 Mar 2016 06:55:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 10 07:55:25 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 1aduVH-00050H-Nn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:55:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46618 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aduVG-0005h4-Tx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:55:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47019) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aduV2-0005dx-FU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:55:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aduUy-0001IY-BV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:55:08 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:35343) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aduUy-0001IT-8q; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:55:04 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4852 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aduUx-0007wH-F4; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:55:03 -0500 In-reply-to: <56E0CEBC.80804@cs.ucla.edu> (message from Paul Eggert on Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:32:44 -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:201353 Archived-At: > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:32:44 -0800 > > > 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. Your opinion on this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, since you never tried to install git-merge-changelog. Without it, I agree with you that ChangeLog merge conflicts are very irritating. But that's exactly why git-merge-changelog was written. > >> 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. It's not low-priority work when I need an accurate accord of what happened. Then it's very high priority for me.