[gst-devel] RELEASE: GStreamer Good Plug-ins 0.10.15 'I've been up all night'

[Felipe Contreras]

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Edward Hervey <bilboed at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 10:27 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Why don't you use 'git short-log' instead?
>> git shortlog RELEASE-0_10_14..RELEASE-0.10.15
>>
>> Then you'll see why "[MOVED FROM BAD 56/56]" is ugly.
>
>  Aren't you tackling the wrong end of the problem ? If the release
> notes contained the output of git shortlog (regardless of the moves) I'd
> never read them.
>
>  The point of a release note is not to be a behemoth mail with all the
> details of what happened... That's what the ChangeLog is for (which is
> automatically generated). It's an extra burden for the release
> maintainer, but having a human-parsed summary of the changes ("Features
> of this release") is much better than a machine-generated output.

The ChangeLog has too many details, if I want so much details I use gitk.

I'm not proposing a modified shortlog, I'm proposing the exact output
of shortlog. If the commits were properly done, then the output of
shortlog would look nice. You would need to get rid of 'automatic
update of common' and instead of "[MOVED FROM BAD 56/56]" make a merge
commit.

>  Would you like the kernel release notes to have the output of git
> short-log in it ?

Yes I would, and they do have the shortlog in them:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123785108928976&w=2

-- 
Felipe Contreras