I was taught to maintain ChangeLog as I edit. In Emacs, you type:
C-x 4 a
... to add a ChangeLog entry. (Will a vim user please explain the
process used? Does it automatically insert a ChangeLog entry template
with the ISO-8601 date, file name, and function?) So for each change
you make, yo
Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I also noticed that sometimes the commit messages aren't as helpful as
> the ChangeLog entries. But, I'm not suggesting we should stop writing
> good commit descriptions, just that we should only manually put good
> commit descriptions into just one p
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 02 December 2005 9:32 pm, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
>> > All you get is the overarching description. You lose the ability to
>> > say what happened in each file. Maybe you don't document your
>> > changes enough to want that ability, but I do.
>
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I'd like is that the ChangeLog entries become "recommended" but not
> "mandatory".
>
> Just getting rid of the warning about reverting any changes that lack a
> ChangeLog entry would be a welcome step.
You're taking the 'warning' way too literall
Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think this little detail is correct. A ChangeLog also does
> not satisfy that requirement.
>
> GPL 2a) "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
This is t
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 06:37:32PM -0700, Chris Lyttle wrote:
> Um, actually even tho HEAD currently doesn't have the NEWS file from
> 1.8.x it is there and NEWS has been updated for every release so far. I
> know, I do those updates 'manually' from looking at the log messages in
> the Changelog an
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:45 +0100, Christian Stimming wrote:
> Derek Atkins schrieb:
> >> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 16:25 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Comments?
> >>
> >> This change is fine with me, and sounds good.
> >
> > Before we go ahead with this, I'd like to hear from Chris Lyttle
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:50:22PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>When you leave the ChangeLog generation out of the developer's hands,
> >>you can't get this level of detail.
> >
> >Sure you can. Just include those details in the commit message.
>
On Friday 02 December 2005 9:32 pm, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> > All you get is the overarching description. You lose the ability to
> > say what happened in each file. Maybe you don't document your
> > changes enough to want that ability, but I do.
>
> Per-file documentation of a single commit is
On December 2, 2005 04:45 pm, Neil Williams wrote:
> Sometimes, yes, especially if the commit fixes a couple of different issues
> across different (but interdependent) files. However, recently I've found
> this does generate duplication. There have been quite a few ChangeLog
> entries that are:
>
Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
When you leave the ChangeLog generation out of the developer's hands,
you can't get this level of detail.
Sure you can. Just include those details in the commit message.
But then the actual ChangeLog looks... Weird. Or at least I suspect
it woul
On Friday 02 December 2005 8:59 pm, Derek Atkins wrote:
> I just thought of the one reason this proposal really bothers me.
> I knew there was something that wasn't sitting right and why I didn't
> think this would work. It's not that I'm against making developers
> lives easier, but I want to mak
Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:10:24PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
I would prefer if you refrained at this moment.. I don't think we have
consensus on this change, yet.
Sorry, I pulled the trigger just before I saw your mail. There does
seem to be sup
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:10:24PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> I would prefer if you refrained at this moment.. I don't think we have
> consensus on this change, yet.
Sorry, I pulled the trigger just before I saw your mail. There does
seem to be support for *some* change. My change doesn't aff
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 03:59:27PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> I just thought of the one reason this proposal really bothers me.
> I knew there was something that wasn't sitting right and why I didn't
> think this would work. It's not that I'm against making developers
> lives easier, but I want
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:59 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> As for how to get the list of files changed, you can just run a diff:
>
> svn diff | grep '^Index'
`svn status` works quite nicely for figuring out the file-level status.
...jsled
--
http://asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.
Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 02:14:30PM -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
My preferred implementation of the policy change is currently:
- Continue the pattern Christian started of pulling old ChangeLog
entries into archive files. These files would contin
I just thought of the one reason this proposal really bothers me.
I knew there was something that wasn't sitting right and why I didn't
think this would work. It's not that I'm against making developers
lives easier, but I want to make sure we don't lose something in kind.
I like the ability to
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 02:14:30PM -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> My preferred implementation of the policy change is currently:
>
> - Continue the pattern Christian started of pulling old ChangeLog
> entries into archive files. These files would continue to live in svn.
BTW, I think that for
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 12:20:25PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Hmm, seems to be in the same vein as rcs2log and cvs2cl. It's a bit
> >more complicated than I'd like, but I guess that's the price paid for
> >such precise control over formatting.
>
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:04:45AM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you want to automatically generate the ChangeLog, which continues
> > to carry all the same information, that's great. I don't care *how*
> > the ChangeLog file gets into the d
Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hmm, seems to be in the same vein as rcs2log and cvs2cl. It's a bit
more complicated than I'd like, but I guess that's the price paid for
such precise control over formatting.
*shrugs* I figured I'd throw it out.
I don't particularly like this o
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:04:45AM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you want to automatically generate the ChangeLog, which continues
> > to carry all the same information, that's great. I don't care *how*
> > the ChangeLog file gets into the d
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 03:45:35PM +0100, Christian Stimming wrote:
> Derek Atkins schrieb:
> >>On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 16:25 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> >>
> >>>Comments?
> >>
> >>This change is fine with me, and sounds good.
> >
> >Before we go ahead with this, I'd like to hear from Chris Lyttl
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 06:05:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Personally, I like being able to grep through the changelog in order
> > to see, e.g. whether a particular change made it into a particular
> > release. I suppose I can always red
Derek Atkins schrieb:
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 16:25 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
Comments?
This change is fine with me, and sounds good.
Before we go ahead with this, I'd like to hear from Chris Lyttle
and Christian Stimming.. They're the ones who usually use the
ChangeLog to generate the N
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want to automatically generate the ChangeLog, which continues
> to carry all the same information, that's great. I don't care *how*
> the ChangeLog file gets into the distribution, only that it do so.
Another option would be to perform a "
Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I like being able to grep through the changelog in order
> to see, e.g. whether a particular change made it into a particular
> release. I suppose I can always redirect the log/status command into
> a file and grep it there.
People who must
Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problems with continuing to use the existing ChangeLog
> policy are:
> - Having to write two commit descriptions increases the chance
> that both will be of lesser quality than if only one description was
> required.
Write one desc
Quoting Josh Sled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 16:25 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
Comments?
This change is fine with me, and sounds good.
Before we go ahead with this, I'd like to hear from Chris Lyttle
and Christian Stimming.. They're the ones who usually use the
ChangeLog
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 16:25 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> Comments?
This change is fine with me, and sounds good.
...jsled
--
http://asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-deve
On Thursday 01 December 2005 9:25 pm, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> The problems with continuing to use the existing ChangeLog
> policy are:
> - Having to write two commit descriptions increases the chance
> that both will be of lesser quality than if only one description was
> required.
Developers,
I'm requesting comments on the following policy change. I
believe this change would streamline GnuCash development.
* Background
For many years now, the development policy has included a
requirement to make an entry in the ChangeLog file describing the
changes made a
33 matches
Mail list logo
