On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:37:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > This is okay 80% of the time and badly needs manual editing the remaining > 20% of the time. I personally would never be willing to forgo good > changelogs in that remaining 20% of the time that can't really be handled > with commit messages, and the systems I've seen for embedding metadata in > Git just seem awkward.
I've seen some systems used very well, which can reliably generate NEWS files with zero interaction. Those systems ought to be able to generate debian/changelog similarly. > That said, one reason why I hold this position is that I've personally > found the concerns with changelogs checked into Git to be vastly > overblown, and they've never caused me significant problems in practice. > Those who have had other experiences might reach different cost/benefit > tradeoffs. I've had quite a few negative experiences with that, including merge conflicts and having to write messages twice.
