From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Moreton Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 18:05:12 +0000 Message-ID: <86si02upt3.fsf@gmail.com> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457373957 20738 80.91.229.3 (7 Mar 2016 18:05:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:05:57 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 07 19:05:49 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 1aczXO-0004mU-Vf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 19:05:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57561 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aczXO-0007kl-Bf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:05:46 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56729) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aczXJ-0007kb-P2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:05:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aczXF-0002YC-JC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:05:41 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:46325) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aczXF-0002Y0-5t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:05:37 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aczXB-0004dH-LN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 19:05:33 +0100 Original-Received: from 82-69-64-228.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk ([82.69.64.228]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 19:05:33 +0100 Original-Received: from andrewjmoreton by 82-69-64-228.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 19:05:33 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 37 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82-69-64-228.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.92 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ucHNwWsVxYjvH2Z/TUMeBdf8cDQ= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:201066 Archived-At: On Mon 07 Mar 2016, John Wiegley wrote: >>>>>> Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> But the discussion is not the main issue. We should actually go back to >> having an actively maintained ChangeLog file in the repository, something we >> stopped doing a year ago. If there's agreement to that, I rest my case. > > OK, let's shift this discussion in that direction again. > > Given that there are active developers who appreciate and use the ChangeLog > format, I don't think we are going to remove them just yet. Instead, the > question has been raised as to whether we should go back to maintaining > ChangeLog files manually, or continue to generate them from version control as > we do now. > > My vote is to continue generating from version control, and Eli would like to > go back to direct maintenance. What do others think? I have no opinion on whether the ChangeLog file should exist in the repo, but having git commit messages look like ChangeLog entries is actively harmful. Most of the content duplicates what the version control system can show you with greater accuracy, and describes only what was changed. Far too little attention is given in this format as to *why* a changeset was committed. Commit messages should show both what motivates the need for a patch (bugfix, new feature etc), and why the approach chosen is better than other possible designs. The Linux kernel documentation has a good description of what is needed in a commit message in section 2 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches. AndyM