[PATCH] So are we using ChangeLog or not?

Simon McVittie simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk
Thu Oct 11 03:16:20 PDT 2007

There have been an assortment of commits from J5 recently which didn't update
ChangeLog. I personally think this is an argument in favour of
auto-generating ChangeLog from git log --stat at dist time, and
shouting at people who write poor commit messages instead of people who write
poor (or nonexistent) ChangeLog entries; that has the advantage that
when you commit, you can't avoid writing a commit message.

Also, many of the conventions people follow in ChangeLogs seem to be relics of
projects that didn't have modern (> CVS) source code control:

* date and committer: implicitly logged, even if the patch is pulled
  from a non-committer's git tree (distributed source code control for the win)
* filenames affected: implicitly logged (git-log --stat)
* writing ChangeLog incrementally as you work: if you need to do this, your
  commits are probably too big (one user-visible change can be a series
  of patches, see my recent dbus core changes...)
* git log (or svn log, or bzr log, or darcs changes, or...) produces a much
  more sensible changelog than cvs log would, due to knowing about
  multi-file commits

However, since Havoc seems to disagree, I attach a patch for ChangeLog.
Are we enforcing ChangeLog entries or not?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Add-J5-s-recent-changes-to-ChangeLog.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 2732 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20071011/5d92188e/attachment.patch 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20071011/5d92188e/attachment.pgp 

More information about the dbus mailing list