Re: none

[Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> John Darrington <jmd@gnu.org> skribis:
>
>> In my opinion the changelog conventions are achronistic, unintuitive,
>> and bring benefit neither to developers nor users.
>
> Well, opinions may vary.
>
> It benefits me when I review other people’s patches, because it helps me
> understand the structure of the change.  And it benefits me before I
> commit something, because it forces me to review all of my patch, make
> sure it’s consistent, make sure there’s no leftover, and giving me an
> opportunity to add comments to code that appears non-obvious in
> hindsight.

I also find them very useful when digging through (possibly ancient)
commit history.  Although all the information is in the actual patch,
when looking through many commits it is much more convenient to read a
summary of the changes.  One summary line is not enough detail.

Of course, it's extra work to write these summaries, but IMO it's
worthwhile.

      Mark

> I think the rationale at
> <http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Change-Logs> still
> holds.
>
> Ludo’.