[RFC] Policy change for ChangeLog

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:50:22PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker at Cox.net>:
> 
> >>When you leave the ChangeLog generation out of the developer's hands,
> >>you can't get this level of detail.
> >
> >Sure you can.  Just include those details in the commit message.
> 
> But then the actual ChangeLog looks... Weird.  Or at least I suspect
> it would.  I'd have to take a look and see for sure.

It might look weird if you feel compelled to format the file list in
the way designed to communicate as much as possible about the
file.  But, once the committer gets use to the idea that svn is
keeping track of recording and reporting all the details like full
pathname and branch, he is freed up to use the format most appropriate
for making the point at hand.  That format may not be:

        * path/to/file/one/foo.c: explanation
        * anotherpath/to/anotherfile/two/bar.c: more explanations
        etc...

but maybe more like: "files in one/ now use the new functions provided
in two/"

> >I'm sure I'll be glad when I can skip 1, 2 and 4.  And for the poor
> >souls who aren't using emacs... :(
> 
> I admit that steps 2 and 4 may seem superfluous, but with the right tools
> it takes zero time.  You're the one who keeps talking about using the
> right tools for the job.  

That *does* sound like something I'd say.  :)

> I maintain "emacs" is a good one :)

Just to clarify: I *do* use emacs, and I agree.  *All* of the gnucash
development I've done has been in emacs, and probably will be.  But,
I'm concerned not to allow my use of a tool that efficiently
compensates for a poor process to prevent me from improving that
process for the benefit of those who use less sophisticated tools.

-chris