Re: [PATCH 2/2] gitlog-to-changelog: support 'tiny change' commits.

[Jim Meyering]

Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Here is another patch to solve a similar issue with ChangeLog `tiny change'
> annotations, by interpreting a 'Copyright-paperwork-required: No' line in
> the git log message to mean that the ChangeLog output requires the `tiny
> change' annotation.
>
> Because the annotation is added to the date_line, there is no suppression
> of consecutive header blocks when all else is equal but for a difference in
> the annotation.
>
> Okay to push?
>
> The FSF insist that all non-trivial patches to its projects are
> accompanied by appropriate paperwork, or that any patches that are
> applied without that paperwork are marked as such in the
> ChangeLog.
> * gitlog-to-changelog: Convert `Copyright-paperwork-required: No'
> lines from the git log message to standard `(tiny change)'
> ChangeLog annotation.
> ---
>  ChangeLog                     |    9 +++++++++
>  build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog |   10 ++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
> index f370be6..d59d9f9 100644
> --- a/ChangeLog
> +++ b/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,5 +1,14 @@
>  2011-11-01  Gary V. Vaughan  <address@hidden>
>
> +     gitlog-to-changelog: support `tiny change' commits.
> +     The FSF insist that all non-trivial patches to its projects are

Even if somewhere you've felt "insistence" on this issue,
let's just write "request":

s/insist/request/

s/are/be/ (both above and below)

> +     accompanied by appropriate paperwork, or that any patches that are
> +     applied without that paperwork are marked as such in the
> +     ChangeLog.
> +     * gitlog-to-changelog: Convert `Copyright-paperwork-required: No'

I find that rather long, and have a slight preference
to avoid an always-negative setting.
Did you consider "Tiny-change: Yes"
or even simply "/^Tiny[- ]change\b/",
so that "Tiny change by ..." will be recognized.

Now that I've thought about it a little more, ...

Actually, I question whether establishing such a convention.
and going to this trouble is worthwhile, since the size of the
change is already known, via the associated patch.
The notation requirement made more sense back each ChangeLog entry
was not tied to the associated patch.

Authorship matters a lot more than marking a change
that is obviously small by some measure as a "(tiny change)".
Let's see what Karl thinks.

> +     lines from the git log message to standard `(tiny change)'
> +     ChangeLog annotation.
...
> +      # Format 'Copyright-paperwork-required: No' as a standard ChangeLog
> +      # `(tiny change)' annotation.
> +      my $tiny_change = grep /^Copyright-paperwork-required:\s+[Nn]o$/, 
> @line;
> +      $date_line =~ s/$/  (tiny change)/ if $tiny_change;
> +
>        # Format 'Co-authored-by: A U Thor <address@hidden>' lines in
>        # standard multi-author ChangeLog format.
>        my @coauthors = grep /^Co-authored-by:.*>$/, @line;
> @@ -167,8 +172,9 @@ sub quoted_cmd(@)
>        $prev_date_line = $date_line;
>        @prev_coauthors = @coauthors;
>
> -      # Omit "Co-authored-by..." and "Signed-off-by..." lines.
> +      # Omit meta-data lines we've already interpreted.
>        @line = grep !/^(Co-authored|Signed-off)-by: .*>$/, @line;
> +      @line = grep !/^Copyright-paperwork-required: /, @line;
>
>        # Remove leading and trailing blank lines.
>        while ($line[0] =~ /^\s*$/) { shift @line; }
> --
> 1.7.7.1
>
> Cheers,