From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Wojciech Meyer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bzr send workflow Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:27:39 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87occvzosg.fsf@bnikolic.co.uk> <87bp8ps3hc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87vd6w4ons.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5f63c0813bf048ecc67fb X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282908483 2703 80.91.229.12 (27 Aug 2010 11:28:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:28:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Bojan Nikolic , Stefan Monnier , Andy Wingo To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 27 13:27:59 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 1Oox6C-0003iF-PM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:27:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46802 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oox6C-0006xi-7A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:27:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55877 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oox62-0006wY-21 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:27:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oox5x-00040h-1X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:27:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.216.41]:59617) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oox5w-00040M-Vb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:27:41 -0400 Original-Received: by qwf7 with SMTP id 7so3410578qwf.0 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:27:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vYCb0SQ2I3zI80hVn8bapqGsJBv0DmFQnuyn1z21i1o=; b=Br19veTLEOonUN39iOaQoVNSyJ55dqDnsekiBBk1GWKjsijFzqBtKnyk2p7H50qoQF yVui8o221uUeCyBngHNVo8qf/LvnWmZXTr2hmcrFGwlJVAhZQW6VxThv15YRGSvrSJkW SygpuUYwyf9dq7qMEjb2/TK/H/OSQx0UDqidQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=EBESItRPrYLQP/HWKwEEOF2WOAprGqbvqZYwtBzw0e5hEYukzCECD5P6P0vwZEaCQl jxRhumfEK5JXelaIaUb9VLhebp/BdQufgmvJRSRAEizr1dlQ5g83C4qO0FaA3z7iX3Nj E9hvjxspQjP3YC9HrQvUfgf35DDCFbjxGj/sU= Original-Received: by 10.229.117.25 with SMTP id o25mr397958qcq.197.1282908459897; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.229.229.208 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:27:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87vd6w4ons.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:129293 Archived-At: --000e0cd5f63c0813bf048ecc67fb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Generally I would suggest two things for Change-logs: - if anybody plan to generate it from bzr log, then maybe keeping the old one is OK and prepending a new one. There would not be anything lost in this case (as suggested - quality of commit comments vs changelog) - now, we could tag textually commit messages, saying this is `commit' significant and should be put into Change-Log (or just keeping the revision numbers lists in separate place, this would be less appealing, change of vc, maintaining another file). The only drawback of using tagged commits, is that they might not reflect what really happened at *this* particular commit, otherwise it solves the problem (at least with ChangeLogs). Mine two cents (sorry about getting into the middle of discussion). Wojciech --000e0cd5f63c0813bf048ecc67fb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

Generally I would suggest two things for Change-logs:
- if an= ybody plan to generate it from bzr log, then maybe keeping the old one is O= K and prepending a new one. There would not be anything lost in this case (= as suggested - quality of commit comments vs changelog)
- now, we could tag textually commit messages, saying this is `commit' = significant and should be put into Change-Log (or just keeping the revision= numbers lists in separate place, this would be less appealing, change of v= c, maintaining another file).

The only drawback of using tagged commits, is that they might not refle= ct what really happened at *this* particular commit, otherwise it solves th= e problem (at least with ChangeLogs).

Mine two cents (sorry about ge= tting into the middle of discussion).

Wojciech


--000e0cd5f63c0813bf048ecc67fb--