Changelogs, really useful?

Changelogs, really useful?

[Andrea Crotti]

It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
things) but more general about programming...

I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
would be exactly what I add in the changelog.

I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
changelogs?

I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
use the software should be really important, but the default style on
emacs is quite detailed.

How do you manage?
Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?

Thanks

Re: Changelogs, really useful?

[Deniz Dogan]

2010/8/6 Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>:
> It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
> things) but more general about programming...
>
> I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
> I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
> commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
> would be exactly what I add in the changelog.
>
> I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
> revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
> changelogs?
>
> I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
> use the software should be really important, but the default style on
> emacs is quite detailed.
>
> How do you manage?
> Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?
>
> Thanks
>

I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.

Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
(Those poor people!)

-- 
Deniz Dogan

Re: Changelogs, really useful?

[Richard Riley]

Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:

> 2010/8/6 Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>:
>> It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
>> things) but more general about programming...
>>
>> I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
>> I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
>> commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
>> would be exactly what I add in the changelog.
>>
>> I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
>> revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
>> changelogs?
>>
>> I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
>> use the software should be really important, but the default style on
>> emacs is quite detailed.
>>
>> How do you manage?
>> Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
> put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
> enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.
>
> Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
> which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
> (Those poor people!)

Generate the changelog from the VCS in use when you Make the program.

Re: Changelogs, really useful?

[Andrea Crotti]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com> writes:

> Generate the changelog from the VCS in use when you Make the program.

That looks like a nice solution, but sometimes the message is general
("some small changes"), would that add one entry log for every tiny
function slightly modified?

Or maybe it could be an interactive thing where I choose only what is
really interesting?

I found a couple of scripts (one [1] there), I'll see if they make sense...

But it makes more sense to generate when I commit instead of when I make
the program I guess.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

[1] http://blog.cryos.net/archives/202-Git-and-Automatic-ChangeLog-Generation.html

Re: Changelogs, really useful?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>
() Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:15:51 +0200

   I found a couple of scripts (one [1] there), I'll see if they make sense...

See also create-changelog (and HACKING) from the LibreDWG project:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/libredwg.git

Re: Changelogs, really useful?

[Deniz Dogan]

2010/8/6 Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com>:
> Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2010/8/6 Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>:
>>> It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
>>> things) but more general about programming...
>>>
>>> I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
>>> I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
>>> commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
>>> would be exactly what I add in the changelog.
>>>
>>> I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
>>> revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
>>> changelogs?
>>>
>>> I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
>>> use the software should be really important, but the default style on
>>> emacs is quite detailed.
>>>
>>> How do you manage?
>>> Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>> I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
>> put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
>> enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.
>>
>> Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
>> which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
>> (Those poor people!)
>
> Generate the changelog from the VCS in use when you Make the program.
>

Sometimes the changelog isn't the same as the commit message. The
changelog can be more vague in its description of what was changed
whereas the commit message may include many details.

-- 
Deniz Dogan

Re: Changelogs, really useful?

[Richard Riley]

Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:

> 2010/8/6 Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com>:
>> Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> 2010/8/6 Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>:
>>>> It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
>>>> things) but more general about programming...
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
>>>> I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
>>>> commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
>>>> would be exactly what I add in the changelog.
>>>>
>>>> I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
>>>> revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
>>>> changelogs?
>>>>
>>>> I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
>>>> use the software should be really important, but the default style on
>>>> emacs is quite detailed.
>>>>
>>>> How do you manage?
>>>> Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
>>> put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
>>> enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.
>>>
>>> Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
>>> which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
>>> (Those poor people!)
>>
>> Generate the changelog from the VCS in use when you Make the program.
>>
>
> Sometimes the changelog isn't the same as the commit message. The
> changelog can be more vague in its description of what was changed
> whereas the commit message may include many details.


Sure. I was just throwing it out there as a possibility in the
discussion. It's quite common in git circles to do just that and people
commit msg accordingly.

Re: Changelogs, really useful?

[Andrea Crotti]

Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:

>
> I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
> put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
> enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.
>
> Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
> which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
> (Those poor people!)

Well but if someone wants to know that the day X I changed the return
type of the function Y maybe he wants to read at the code and he's not
scared to use an scm.