It is pretty much a question of it being a totally backwards way of doing things, with one set of people doing the changes, and another set of people guessing the meaning of the changes writing the changelog.
(This is claimed to be due to the first set of people not having the time to writing down what changes they make. Of course those same people seem to think the time spent when the second group has to inquire as to the nature of changes is not wasteful.) But following more conventional practices and heeding the crazy advice of unqualified people like Brian when he writes: "*Keep records*. I maintain a FIXES file that describes every change to the code since the Awk book was published in 1988" [1] would be anathema to the Plan 9 way of doing things. uriel [1]: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~bwk/testing.html On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Devon H. O'Dell <devon.od...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2008/12/22 Venkatesh Srinivas <m...@acm.jhu.edu>: >> Hi, >> >> The contrib index mentions that daily changelogs for Plan 9 are in >> sources/extra/changes, but those haven't been updated since early 2007. >> Is there any preferred way to get changelogs / diffs these days? > > I used to maintain the changelogs, but ended up generating ENOTIME, > pretty much just as everyone else who has worked on that. It's > something I think I might pick up again; either Russ or Uriel emailed > me a set of scripts to maintain it. Perhaps I'll start doing it again; > it's mostly just a question of getting the scripts set up and doing > it. > > --dho > >> Also, in sources/patch, there are patches neither in applied/ or sorry/. >> Are these patches in queue? Applied? Not applied? >> >> Thanks, >> -- vs >> >> > >
