From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Commit netiquette. Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:13:31 +0900 Message-ID: <87vdds6lmc.fsf@catnip.gol.com> References: <87eikjzaug.fsf@telefonica.net> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1266675228 18486 80.91.229.12 (20 Feb 2010 14:13:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:13:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, Juanma Barranquero , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: ams@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 20 15:13:45 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Niq5X-0008Uk-IS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:13:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59586 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Niq5W-0000ym-Ps for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:13:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Niq5Q-0000xy-LV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:13:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36883 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Niq5P-0000xR-SO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:13:36 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Niq5P-00028S-Bi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:13:35 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp12.dentaku.gol.com ([203.216.5.74]:35001) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Niq5N-00027y-RR; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:13:34 -0500 Original-Received: from 218.33.233.164.eo.eaccess.ne.jp ([218.33.233.164] helo=catnip.gol.com) by smtp12.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku) id 1Niq5L-00080y-O0; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:13:31 +0900 Original-Received: by catnip.gol.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1FB19DF91; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:13:31 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: (Alfred M. Szmidt's message of "Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:37:21 -0500") Original-Lines: 25 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV GOL (outbound) X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:121248 Archived-At: "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes: > "bzr log --line" and "C-x C-f ChangeLog " are different > operations. We're talking about the use of the bzr tool (including > graphical interfaces), not about ChangeLog. > > The two contain the same information, so essentially they are the > same. No. The short summary represents _extra_ information. It may be derived from the same original source in many cases, but the editorial decisions required to construct a summary are non-trivial and useful. Of course, people could also provide summary lines in a ChangeLog -- e.g., prefix a classic ChangeLog entry with a "SUMMARY:" line. Indeed, I'd recommend that people do this, even though it's not a part of the classic ChangeLog format (I do this sometimes when adding a single cohesive change that touches many files); it makes ChangeLogs easier to read and more useful. -Miles -- 80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen