On 11/05/2015 12:39 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> 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 > yeah, +1 on that too. I am not too bothered with the name to be honest. However, using 'ChangeLog' for git logs sounds like something most of us and users are familiar with already so that should work.
-- Regards, Markos Chandras
