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: master 5022e27: ; Do not overwrite preexisting contents of unread-command-events Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 11:38:32 +0200 Message-ID: <87fv3ui0h3.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20150804124300.13374.78396@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <2qy4hr840o.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87r3nj3vbw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87k2t6i3hu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <838u9mqh4t.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1439026751 26966 80.91.229.3 (8 Aug 2015 09:39:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 09:39:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 08 11:39:11 2015 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 1ZO0ar-00045p-Pl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 11:39:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52395 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZO0ar-0007bn-0o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:39:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48874) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZO0an-0007bX-Lx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:39:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZO0ai-0002Fv-RV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:39:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44403) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZO0ai-0002Fp-OC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:39:00 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58222 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZO0ah-00076d-NE; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:39:00 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 83832E0B6C; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:38:32 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <838u9mqh4t.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:11:30 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). 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:188603 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: David Kastrup >> Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:33:17 +0200 >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> > What do you propose I do now? >> >> That question was not rhetorical. > > It's unclear to me what exactly were you asking. If the question is > how to fix that single ChangeLog entry, then the answer is: wait for > the update to ChangeLog.2 to be committed (happens once a week, I > think), and then manually correct (add in your case) the problematic > entry, and commit the result. Well, the question is just what this entry should entail. Every changed function and file? That will be a rather large entry. Apart from that I don't think I need to "wait for the update to ChangeLog.2" since the complaint was that the log message was formatted in a way where it would not even cause an entry to ChangeLog.2. So it doesn't really seem to matter all that much just when I'll update ChangeLog.2 manually. > If you are asking about future log entries, then here's what I do: I > keep a local ChangeLog file, which is unversioned. I use the normal > "C-x 4 a" command to write a ChangeLog entry, and then I copy it to > the log message when I commit the changeset. After unindenting and reformatting, yeah. Which is a total crutch. But it's not like I haven't done it for years just like that. I just pointed out that this will lead to a very large ChangeLog entry here. > If the question is how to format the log entry for the particular > changeset you committed in 5022e27dac4c13651941e425dbec5b3a2cecdae4, > then after looking through it I see no problem to just mention every > function where you made the changes. It sounds like most of them > replace setq with a push, or do similar minor changes, which is fine > to mention in the log entry. Well, the changes are mostly of the "similar minor change" kind, namely not completely obeying the same description. The main problem I have is that the invested work and the resulting space in the ChangeLog is not going to save anybody any time or effort since we are not talking about a feature here or normally user-visible changes in semantics. And it's not particular to any package/feature either. It's not the kind of change we are maintaining a ChangeLog file separate from commit messages for. I can invest the time necessary for creating this dump half-manually if desired. I just have a trouble figuring out any reason why it would be desired. If we had an automated way of creating such a change log entry generating commit message, it would waste less of the _writer's_ time. But I can't help the feeling that in this case I'm also only wasting _readers'_ time. The reason I made that simple commit message really wasn't "oh, I'm too lazy to do a proper one" but rather "this would not even make sense". Obviously other developers disagree after the fact so I'll "fix" it. I just have a hard time doing a fix that does not feel like making the situation worse than it is already. -- David Kastrup