From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs.git mirror status Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:04:05 +0200 Message-ID: <86d4wh5le2.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <87y7f9n06z.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <87sl5hmz2t.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <86zlzpr663.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86r6l1qzp1.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86ejh1qxie.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1190045314 16788 80.91.229.12 (17 Sep 2007 16:08:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:08:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Glenn Morris , emacs-devel@gnu.org, jim@meyering.net, schwab@suse.de To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 17 18:08:30 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IXJ9A-0003pS-KD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:08:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXJ99-00024r-87 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:08:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IXJ50-0004ZN-VF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:04:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IXJ4y-0004VS-Ed for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:04:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXJ4y-0004VD-1b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:04:08 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IXJ4x-0000A7-4q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:04:07 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10104 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:03:57 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 31925 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2007 16:04:05 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 17 Sep 2007 16:04:05 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9F6198F8ED; Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:04:05 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon\, 17 Sep 2007 11\:53\:41 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:79116 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > > How about putting that history into the ChangeLog files? > > Argh! You specifically requested this history be taken out > ("simplifying" or "crunching" the ChangeLogs) before the merge could > be done! > > I did not realize we were talking about that information. Oops! Well, at least I wasn't. I was talking about per-commit information. > Why is the information about early changes in multi-tty so > important? Did they put explanations of reasons and problems into > the change log? The fine-grained history of changes makes it possible to see what changes belong together and are likely to constitute one change set with one meaning. This would be important for figuring out the relation between things even if there were no ChangeLog entries, and no commit logs. While I have not looked at the original Bazaar archive yet, it would be my hope that there _are_ some commit logs in there, too. > We normally put that information into comments in the code, which is > the best place for it; as a consequence, crunching the old change > log history doesn't lose those explanations. But the explanations don't help with figuring out which exact lines were involved with what change. -- David Kastrup