[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs |
Date: |
Tue, 08 Mar 2016 20:02:29 +0200 |
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:44:47 +0200
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> On 03/08/2016 05:45 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > You (and some others) say the format and the content in the log
> > messages are important, and I agree. But if we do care about them,
> > how can we NOT clean them up? Having them in their current state
> > means they cannot be trusted, which is worse than not having them at
> > all.
>
> That's true. But my motivation for using ChangeLogs stems from having
> people describe their changes in a strict format. If someone writes a
> wrong name or omits the "copyright-exempt" header, I could live with that.
>
> We should find out how much it is of a problem, though, legally speaking.
Not just legal aspect are at stake. I tried to explain that in one of
my previous messages.
> >> Has the current experiment really sucked too much energy from anyone,
> >> aside from the implementors?
> >
> > Why do you think Glenn gave up?
>
> My bad. All right, Glenn gave up fixing errors. Isn't that because
> people made too much mistakes, and didn't bother to fix them?
>
> Even if we transition to the previous system, it will need the same
> people to fix their errors.
It is easy to ask someone to fix a mistake in a file and push the
change. With the current system, fixing mistakes requires a much more
complex procedure, and also screws up merges to master.
> > The current system is much more hassle for non-random contributors, so
> > much so that we risk losing them, something we cannot afford.
>
> Will someone decide to stop contributing to Emacs because our Change Log
> entries contain mistakes? That doesn't sound very plausible.
When people like Glenn give up in despair, I think the danger is real.
IME, it's hard to be part of a project that ignores repeated requests
to fix something you believe must be fixed.
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, (continued)
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/07
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/03/07
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Stefan Monnier, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/07
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Mathieu Lirzin, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Stefan Monnier, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Stefan Monnier, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/08
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/09
- Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs, Stefan Monnier, 2016/03/09