On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 08:29 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote: > > Sorry, but again, this is not a good enough justification to me. > > We do a lot of things different than "The GNU Project". > > So do plenty of parts of the "official GNU project". > > They use different coding standards, bug tracking systems, version > > control systems, checkin policies, etc, than each other. > > Yes, but none of those are visible other than to the development community. > People who obtain the source distributions of projects don't get to see > those things. They DO see things like the ChangeLog format and coding > and documentation conventions and THOSE are the things that need to be > common among GNU projects. > > In my view, ChangeLog is mostly "write-only" from a developer's > perspective. It's a document that the GNU project requires us to produce > for the benefit of people who DON'T want access to our checkin-logs, bug > tracking information, and mailing lsits. But for our own development > purposes, we use the above information much more than ChangeLog. Right.
I don't necessarily want verbose ChangeLogs -- there are times I just want to know what changed and who changed it. That's nice and easy to extract from the ChangeLog. Sometimes I want to look at the code/comments. Obviously I go to the source to read those. Sometimes I want even more information for a particularly complex or controversial change -- in those cases I go back to the mailing list archives and review the discussion(s) leading to changes to the code. Each repository of information provides a different level of detail and each (IMHO) has its place/utility. Jeff
