On 9/5/21, G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > I envision of rough trichotomy of correspondence. > > NEWS all users > ChangeLog packagers/expert users > commit messages groff developers
As one data point, I'm neither packager nor groff developer, and I'd rate myself an intermediate-knowledge user. I look at commit messages frequently and pretty much never at the ChangeLog. On 9/5/21, Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: > While i do see the point in the three-tier system outlined by Branden, > let me note that it causes more work for developers, which is not ideal > for a small development team with little time to spare. If the middle tier is deemed worth keeping, could it be autogenerated with an agreed-upon use of tags in the commit messages? That is, each commit could be tagged as [behavior change], [bug fix], [refactor], etc., and a change log with more or less detail could be generated by selecting which tags to include. (Or, more simply and less error-prone, there could be untagged commits and commits tagged [minor], and a log generation tool could omit the minor ones.) This involves a little start-up work of writing such a script (if none exists in the wild), but should streamline developers' workflow in the long run.
