[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] Switch from CVS to GIT is done

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 17:22 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 16:19 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> >> yeah, I think moving ChangeLog to ChangeLog.CVS and generating the
> >> logs starting from today at "make dist" time is probably the best, it
> >> will avoid copying over redundant informations.
> >
> > Cool.
> >
> >> On the other hand we
> >> should try to keep the git log output coherent with the previous
> >> format.
> >
> > FWIW, I think it's best to switch to a new format that better suits git.
> >
> > e.g. "git log --pretty=oneline" can be very useful, but only where
> > people properly summarise the commit on the first line. If we used the
> > typical ChangeLog format, it would be useless. Also, we don't need the
> > date and author information twice.
> >
> > II think git commit messages generally more genuinely useful information
> > than a ChangeLog entry - it seems to encourage people to more fully
> > explain what they're doing.
> >
> > If we switch formats, 'git log --stat' is fine for Changelog - you get
> > author, date, files changed etc.
> Hi Mark,
> What do you think of coreutils' logs?
> It's generated and still ChangeLog-conforming, yet with an added
> one-line summary and sometimes (for larger changes) more prose:
>   http://meyering.net/code/tmp/coreutils-ChangeLog

Looking at the git commits e.g.


it doesn't duplicate date/author and has a good first line summary, so
it's pretty good.

The one question I'd have is whether listing of per-file changes has any
value. IMHO, it tends to restrict the explanation people give about
about their commits. Looking at projects that don't do this, I think you
tend to get much more background on why the change is being made, not
just what changed.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]