Re: git log -> changelog

[Jim Meyering]

Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2010, at 12:47, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 05:20:30AM CEST:
>>> On 6 Sep 2010, at 03:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>>> Except that the autotools project logs contain lots of S-O-B entries
>>>> which explicitly do not have that particular meaning.  :-/
>>>
>>> I suppose we can create an annotation for logs that have a non-compliant
>>> SoB as if it was any other commit log typo we want to override to make
>>> sure gitlog-to-changelog creates a beautiful ChangeLog -- after we document
>>> our policy, and for entries going back to the beginning of the year in
>>> which we decide to start using gitlog-to-changelog.
>>>
>>> Even if we wait until next year to start using gitlog-to-changelog, I
>>> think it worthwhile to know in advance how we will cope with a commit log
>>> that needs a correction.
>>
>> Definitely, yes.  I'm afraid I still don't quite understand the intended
>> semantics though.  All S-O-B entries are to be co-authors of the patch,
>> starting from, say, January 1, 2011?
>
> As a start, yes.  We also need to come up with a way to annotate for
> `(tiny change)', and to override typos without changing history.
>
> And then we need to patch gitlog-to-changelog so that it produces correct
> ChangeLog entries when it encounters those annotations.

This has been on my list since long before "git notes" existed.
Now that most versions of git in use support "git notes",
we can decide how to encode corrections in the git note
attached to the commit whose log it affects.
Git notes first appeared in git-1.6.6 (Dec 2009).