Re: ChangeLogs

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On  6-Jan-2009, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
> | > Maybe, but that's way more complicated. Moreover, what if the patch is
> | > transplanted
> | > later to another repo? Should the date of the ChangeLog entries be 
> updated?
> | > Much more work.
>
> If you are cloning an archive, then I don't think the dates should
> change.  But if you are transplanting some changes from one branch to
> another, then I think it might be useful for the dates to change.  I
> think it depends on the purpose.
>

Now that's an idea I really don't like (because of the amount of
manual editing it brings).
In that case, I'd vote for getting rid of ChangeLog files.

> | I'd have to think about that one.  But the advantage of organizing
> | by date patched is that when one knows roughly when something
> | stopped working s/he can quickly surmise what may have changed to
> | cause the problem.
>
> Yes, that's a good reason for the ChangeLog entries to have the date
> when the patch was applied.
>

Using my approach, the entries bear their date of origin, but are
sorted in the order they were applied, which I always found enough for
all practical matters.

> I think we avoid these issues if we do away with hand-edited ChangeLog
> files and simply generate them from the Mercurial archive when we make
> releases.
>

Sure; but what to do with the existing ChangeLog files? Can they be
imported somehow into Mercurial? Can Savannah handle this? If we just
leave them, the result will be sort of messy, won't it?

> jwe
>



-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz