On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:47 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > FWIW, I don't create the tarballs. Perhaps we could ask Johannes to > do something in his scripts that create them? Beyond that I don't > see much point in checking-in a ChangeLog.
It definitely shouldn't be checked into git, but rather generated from the git commit logs; with git2cl, git log or similar. With an autotools based build system you would add a command to the Makefile.am so that automake runs git2cl during 'make dist' / 'make distcheck'. For non-autotools based projects you usually won't have a standard 'make dist' so it would need to be added to whatever script is the equivalent. > Do you like that git2cl output? It seems rather ugly to me... Its the standard ancient GNU form for a ChangeLog. I have no opinion on its aesthetics and I don't think it matters what format it has really. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
