On 07/18/2013 10:53 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 10:11 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
In the example ("Commit the changes to the central repository") you
appear to have trimmed the top line containing date and name from the
ChangeLog entry, and I've (mostly) emulated that in my commits, but
looking at "svn log" there seems to be some variety in what people do.
Presumably the log message should contain the ChangeLog fragment(s),
with multiple ChangeLogs indicated by path.
I think most folks just use their ChangeLog entries as-is. I suspect
that if we move forward with some kind of "extract ChangeLogs from the
repository' that we'll need to formalize this a bit better. That's
certainly been the case for other projects that have dropped manual
ChangeLogs in favor of extracting them from the repository.
or somesuch - comments should describe the *intent* of change, rather
than merely an English description. Why do GNU ChangeLogs seems to
favor the latter approach?]
It's always been the policy that code comments should carry the intent
of the change while the ChangeLog just notes what changed.
As Jim W. mentioned in the steering committee bof, there was a
requirement that a log of changes be kept. In the early days, GCC
didn't use any version control system and the ChangeLog was the only way
to track what had changed.
Jeff
