[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: master 5022e27: ; Do not overwrite preexisting contents of unread-co
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: master 5022e27: ; Do not overwrite preexisting contents of unread-command-events |
Date: |
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 11:38:32 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:33:17 +0200
>> Cc: address@hidden
>>
>> > What do you propose I do now?
>>
>> That question was not rhetorical.
>
> It's unclear to me what exactly were you asking. If the question is
> how to fix that single ChangeLog entry, then the answer is: wait for
> the update to ChangeLog.2 to be committed (happens once a week, I
> think), and then manually correct (add in your case) the problematic
> entry, and commit the result.
Well, the question is just what this entry should entail. Every changed
function and file? That will be a rather large entry.
Apart from that I don't think I need to "wait for the update to
ChangeLog.2" since the complaint was that the log message was formatted
in a way where it would not even cause an entry to ChangeLog.2. So it
doesn't really seem to matter all that much just when I'll update
ChangeLog.2 manually.
> If you are asking about future log entries, then here's what I do: I
> keep a local ChangeLog file, which is unversioned. I use the normal
> "C-x 4 a" command to write a ChangeLog entry, and then I copy it to
> the log message when I commit the changeset.
After unindenting and reformatting, yeah. Which is a total crutch. But
it's not like I haven't done it for years just like that. I just
pointed out that this will lead to a very large ChangeLog entry here.
> If the question is how to format the log entry for the particular
> changeset you committed in 5022e27dac4c13651941e425dbec5b3a2cecdae4,
> then after looking through it I see no problem to just mention every
> function where you made the changes. It sounds like most of them
> replace setq with a push, or do similar minor changes, which is fine
> to mention in the log entry.
Well, the changes are mostly of the "similar minor change" kind, namely
not completely obeying the same description.
The main problem I have is that the invested work and the resulting
space in the ChangeLog is not going to save anybody any time or effort
since we are not talking about a feature here or normally user-visible
changes in semantics. And it's not particular to any package/feature
either. It's not the kind of change we are maintaining a ChangeLog file
separate from commit messages for.
I can invest the time necessary for creating this dump half-manually if
desired. I just have a trouble figuring out any reason why it would be
desired. If we had an automated way of creating such a change log entry
generating commit message, it would waste less of the _writer's_ time.
But I can't help the feeling that in this case I'm also only wasting
_readers'_ time.
The reason I made that simple commit message really wasn't "oh, I'm too
lazy to do a proper one" but rather "this would not even make sense".
Obviously other developers disagree after the fact so I'll "fix" it. I
just have a hard time doing a fix that does not feel like making the
situation worse than it is already.
--
David Kastrup