>>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:18:07 +0000 > "Robin H. Johnson" <robb...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 08:05:56AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> > What would be the problem with renaming? IMHO it would be nicer to >> > keep the ChangeLog name for the autogenerated files and rename the >> > ones from CVS. We already have files renamed to ChangeLog-<year> >> > when they became to large, so we could just use ChangeLog-2015 to >> > stay within that scheme. >> If we rename the old ChangeLog files from CVS to ChangeLog-2015, then >> we'll have both 'ChangeLog-2015' and 'ChangeLog' (generated from Git) >> containing 2015 entries. Worse, what happens when we hit 2016? Do we >> merge the old files? > It's not perfectly clean but I don't see any problem here: > ChangeLog-2015 : all ChangeLog from CVS > ChangeLog: autogenerated from git > if/when there is a need to split git changelogs, autogenerated > changelogs will start from say, Jan. 1st 2016, and previous changes > will now be static. Merging CVS2015 and git2015 changelogs is just a > matter of running a script. Or just skip splitting them for 2016, and > start splitting in 2017, so that ChangeLog-2015 is CVS ones, > ChangeLog-2016 is git logs from Aug. 8. 2015 to Dec. 31 2016. > IMHO this is still better than having ChangeLog stopping in 2015 and > ChangeLog.git starting from this date: Having ChangeLog-2015 from CVS > still carries partial information on the timeline. +1 You said it better than I could have. Ulrich
pgpo6SR_8xCd7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
