From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Legoll Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] gnu: linux-libre-beagle-bone-black: Remove kernel variant. Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:32:46 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20160926103447.31830-1-david@craven.ch> <20160926103447.31830-4-david@craven.ch> <20160926132344.GA23258@jocasta.intra> <87wphv20hb.fsf@gnu.org> <874m4tbfuu.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59309) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1brQmB-0002w4-ME for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 10:33:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1brQm7-0007PV-OE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 10:32:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <874m4tbfuu.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel Hello, >> The "changelog entries are like an undo list" is a WTF, to me this is wh= at >> `patch -R` is for... > > Not quite, because the change log shows the language-level view of the > changes, I don't understand "language-level view of the changes" > It makes it easy to answer questions such as =E2=80=9Cwhen did we change = this > function?=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cwhen did we introduce that variable=E2=80=9D= , etc. This looks suspicously close to *-blame functionality, looks script (or any other automated way) -material to me. Personally I've never done this by searching changelogs (and here I show my lack of participation in GNU-standardized projects)... > I see. The commit title is definitely what you=E2=80=99re interested in = here. Yes, but this is a layered (recursive) approach, I dig a level when the pre= vious one looked interesting, or backtrack. This allows to cheaply skip irrelevan= t material (with a small miss rate). > I understand it can be frustratingly short No, for my usage it's totally useless, I never had to search that way, way = less efficient that a git blame (+ refinements) > but then again it=E2=80=99s no substitute for the full discussions or cod= e explanations [...] > AIUI Linux-style commit logs are not change logs, but explanations. I > still strongly believe that explanations believe in code. Let's agree to disagree Cheers --=20 Vincent Legoll