Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[dsmich]

---- Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl> wrote: 
> Reasons:
> 
> * Much more detailed and inherently correct information can be gotten from 
> 
>   git log -- libguile/
> 
>   git log -- test-suite/
> 
> etc.  
> 
> * The ChangeLog duplicates the git log information if done correctly.  Hence 
> it requires double work for the committer.

Guile is distributed as a tarball, not a git repo.  Does it make sense to create the ChangeLog from the git log at make dist time?

-Dale

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

dsmich@adelphia.net escreveu:
>> * Much more detailed and inherently correct information can be gotten from 
>>
>>   git log -- libguile/
>>
>>   git log -- test-suite/
>>
>> etc.  
>>
>> * The ChangeLog duplicates the git log information if done correctly.  Hence 
>> it requires double work for the committer.
>

> Guile is distributed as a tarball, not a git repo.  Does it make
> sense to create the ChangeLog from the git log at make dist time?

I'm not against that, but anyone who is interested in the history
might as well grab the Git repository.

-- 
 Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Sergey Poznyakoff]

<dsmich@adelphia.net> ha escrit:

> Guile is distributed as a tarball, not a git repo.  Does it make sense to create the ChangeLog from the git log at make dist time?
> 

FWIW, there is a gnulib module for that purpose: gitlog-to-changelog.
Once you import it to the project, the following Makefile rule will
generate ChangeLog at make dist:

dist-hook:
        if test -d .git; then                                           \
          $(top_srcdir)/build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog > $(distdir)/ChangeLog; \
        fi

Regards,
Sergey

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Sergey Poznyakoff <gray@gnu.org.ua> writes:

> <dsmich@adelphia.net> ha escrit:
>
>> Guile is distributed as a tarball, not a git repo.  Does it make sense to create the ChangeLog from the git log at make dist time?
>> 
>
> FWIW, there is a gnulib module for that purpose: gitlog-to-changelog.

Emacs' VC (since 22.2) can also do that (see (info "(emacs) Types of Log
File")).

That said, the ideal would be something like `add-change-log-entry' that
operates on Git logs instead of ChangeLogs, but there doesn't seem to be
anything like this.  DVC is said to support things like that, but it
doesn't seem to be well documented.

Thanks,
Ludovic.

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
> Hi,
> 
> Sergey Poznyakoff <gray@gnu.org.ua> writes:
> 
>> <dsmich@adelphia.net> ha escrit:
>>
>>> Guile is distributed as a tarball, not a git repo.  Does it make sense to create the ChangeLog from the git log at make dist time?
>>>
>> FWIW, there is a gnulib module for that purpose: gitlog-to-changelog.
> 
> Emacs' VC (since 22.2) can also do that (see (info "(emacs) Types of Log
> File")).
> 
> That said, the ideal would be something like `add-change-log-entry' that
> operates on Git logs instead of ChangeLogs, but there doesn't seem to be
> anything like this.  DVC is said to support things like that, but it
> doesn't seem to be well documented.

Try magit (by Marius Vollmer, our previous overlord).  It lets you create 
commits by marking individual patch hunks.  


-- 
 Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hey!

Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès escreveu:

>> That said, the ideal would be something like `add-change-log-entry' that
>> operates on Git logs instead of ChangeLogs, but there doesn't seem to be
>> anything like this.  DVC is said to support things like that, but it
>> doesn't seem to be well documented.
>
> Try magit (by Marius Vollmer, our previous overlord).  It lets you create 
> commits by marking individual patch hunks.  

I wasn't aware of that, but I just gave it a try and it seems to rock!
The doc is also nice.  Good to hear from Marius!  ;-)

Then I guess I'm happy to abolish ChangeLogs.  Two questions remain:

  1. Should we remove ChangeLog files from the repo?
  2. Should we generate ChangeLogs for releases?

I'd say "yes" to (1) and "no" to (2).  That would be a departure from
the GNU Standards, but perhaps it's a sign of their age.

Thanks,
Ludo'.

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
> Hey!
> 
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
>> Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
> 
>>> That said, the ideal would be something like `add-change-log-entry' that
>>> operates on Git logs instead of ChangeLogs, but there doesn't seem to be
>>> anything like this.  DVC is said to support things like that, but it
>>> doesn't seem to be well documented.
>> Try magit (by Marius Vollmer, our previous overlord).  It lets you create 
>> commits by marking individual patch hunks.  
> 
> I wasn't aware of that, but I just gave it a try and it seems to rock!
> The doc is also nice.  Good to hear from Marius!  ;-)
> 
> Then I guess I'm happy to abolish ChangeLogs.  Two questions remain:
> 
>   1. Should we remove ChangeLog files from the repo?
>   2. Should we generate ChangeLogs for releases?
> 
> I'd say "yes" to (1) and "no" to (2).  That would be a departure from
> the GNU Standards, but perhaps it's a sign of their age.

I'd say no (1).  The information in ChangeLog and commit message can diverge,
so deleting them may remove information.  I recommend keeping them around, Perhaps in 
a directory in with historic files, or marking them as

  THESE CHANGELOGS ARE NO LONGER UPDATED

in screaming letters at the top.

-- 
 Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Ludovic Courtès]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès escreveu:

>> Then I guess I'm happy to abolish ChangeLogs.  Two questions remain:
>> 
>>   1. Should we remove ChangeLog files from the repo?
>>   2. Should we generate ChangeLogs for releases?
>> 
>> I'd say "yes" to (1) and "no" to (2).  That would be a departure from
>> the GNU Standards, but perhaps it's a sign of their age.
>
> I'd say no (1).  The information in ChangeLog and commit message can diverge,
> so deleting them may remove information.  I recommend keeping them around, Perhaps in 
> a directory in with historic files, or marking them as
>
>   THESE CHANGELOGS ARE NO LONGER UPDATED
>
> in screaming letters at the top.

Oh right, I concur.

Thanks,
Ludo'.

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Neil Jerram]

2008/8/30 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
>
>>> Then I guess I'm happy to abolish ChangeLogs.  Two questions remain:
>>>
>>>   1. Should we remove ChangeLog files from the repo?
>>>   2. Should we generate ChangeLogs for releases?
>>>
>>> I'd say "yes" to (1) and "no" to (2).  That would be a departure from
>>> the GNU Standards, but perhaps it's a sign of their age.
>>
>> I'd say no (1).  The information in ChangeLog and commit message can diverge,
>> so deleting them may remove information.  I recommend keeping them around, Perhaps in
>> a directory in with historic files, or marking them as
>>
>>   THESE CHANGELOGS ARE NO LONGER UPDATED
>>
>> in screaming letters at the top.
>
> Oh right, I concur.

I agree on (1).  We already have some historical ChangeLog files, like
"ChangeLog-scm" and "ChangeLog-1996-1999", and I suggest renaming the
current set of "ChangeLog"s to "ChangeLog-pre-git" (or similar), and
adding a note to HACKING about what that means.

I'm less sure about (2), but I think I'd be happy with not generating
release ChangeLogs, so long as we document (probably in HACKING again)
how a ChangeLog since the previous release could be generated.

Actually, perhaps it would be nicer to put both those notes in a top
level file called "ChangeLog", rather than in HACKING.  Then anyone
who looks for a ChangeLog will see the information they need, and also
"ChangeLog" probably propagates into distribution packages more
readily than HACKING would.  (At least, it does for Debian.)

Finally, I'm assuming that there would be no change to the quality or
style of the information that we used to put in ChangeLogs; the only
difference is that the same information will now be in the commit
message.  Is that what everyone else is assuming too?

Regards,
       Neil

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

"Neil Jerram" <neiljerram@googlemail.com> writes:

> Actually, perhaps it would be nicer to put both those notes in a top
> level file called "ChangeLog", rather than in HACKING.

Yes, that's the most obvious place to put information about ChangeLogs.
Other ChangeLogs can be renamed as you suggested.

> Finally, I'm assuming that there would be no change to the quality or
> style of the information that we used to put in ChangeLogs; the only
> difference is that the same information will now be in the commit
> message.  Is that what everyone else is assuming too?

Yes, that's my assumption, too, which is why I was looking for an Emacs
mode to simplify the task.

As far as releases are concerned, we can surely use one of these scripts
to generate a top-level ChangeLog.  It doesn't seem too complicated and
may be handy for users who don't want to browse the Git repository.

Thanks,
Ludo'.

Re: RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Andy Wingo]

Hi,

On Fri 29 Aug 2008 12:56, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> That said, the ideal would be something like `add-change-log-entry' that
> operates on Git logs instead of ChangeLogs, but there doesn't seem to be
> anything like this.  DVC is said to support things like that, but it
> doesn't seem to be well documented.

C-x V a I think.

I wrote about DVC here:

   http://wingolog.org/archives/2008/03/11/using-newfangled-version-control-systems-from-emacs

My work flow goes like this:

 * hack hack hack
 * M-x dvc-diff
 * j to go back and forth between file list and diffs
 * t to add a log entry
 * in the log entry, C-c C-c to commit
 * in the diff buffer, g to refresh

That's about it, and works really well for me.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

RFD: please drop ChangeLog updates

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Reasons:

* Much more detailed and inherently correct information can be gotten from 

  git log -- libguile/

  git log -- test-suite/

etc.  

* The ChangeLog duplicates the git log information if done correctly.  Hence 
it requires double work for the committer.

* Since updates to the ChangeLog always happen at the top, they virtually
always conflict on pulls and cherry-picks.  This makes it impossible to
use the power of git.  For example, rebase is the standard git approach 
to creating linear history of changes.  This is apparently something 
the GUILE devs think is important, but the changes to ChangeLog ensure
that every cherry pick will need manual conflict resolution. 


-- 
 Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen