Kev Buckley wrote: > As the "one person reporting confusion" might I just expand on why I > think it doesn't sit too well not to document changes in the Changelog. > > Someone sees a date change in the SVN tag after a few days of > "inactivity" and assumes that there's been a change. They go to > the Changelog and find no changes, not even a notice of unspecified > "various textural changes". > > Should they: > > a) assume that there really are no changes to the instructions or > packages > > b) assume that there has been a mistake in the rendering of the > documentation and seemingly clutter up the lists with queries > as to whether that is actually the case or wait until someone > "in the know" flags it up, as seemingly happened when the whole > Changelog went AWOL a few days ago.
It is svn after all, not a released product. To find exactly what was changed, look at the messages in lfs-book. Every commit message starts with a r????. For instance, r7368 - branches/udev_update/BOOK. If you look at the message contents, every commit has a Log: section at the top. For r7368, the log says: Log: Correct name of Linux UTF8 patch In this case, the date wasn't updated and there is no changelog entry. The change is just too trivial for that. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
