From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59120 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2020 18:58:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 59102 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2020 18:58:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*f:sk:675991e, H*MI:sk:675991e, pay X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (209.51.188.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:58:26 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:33782) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j2Jgt-0006AW-QY; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:58:23 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2974 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1j2Jgr-0008NK-WC; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:58:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: <837e0qqpps.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Simon Marchi CC: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <675991ee-28c0-ce5a-6327-c6ad80ccb1c3@polymtl.ca> (message from Simon Marchi on Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:26:11 -0500) Subject: Re: Using the vcs_to_changelog.py script References: <83imkbqhry.fsf@gnu.org> <83a75mqyry.fsf@gnu.org> <675991ee-28c0-ce5a-6327-c6ad80ccb1c3@polymtl.ca> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 > Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Simon Marchi > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:26:11 -0500 > > My understanding from: > > - past dicussions (the big one on bug- > - the proposed change to standards.texi that you sent > > is that the ChangeLog entry is redundant enough with the combination of: > > - a good commit message that explains why the change is done > - the diff of the change > > which are both kept by the VCS. And for that reason, it's fine not to keep > a ChangeLog file in the VCS. Yes, but: 1) the proposed change was not yet approved as part of the official policy 2) we need some guidelines for "good commit messages", otherwise patch review will need to pay a lot of attention to discussing that and making sure the log messages are fine > However, for the benefit of people just using > tarballs, and not the VCS, we generate a ChangeLog file from the diff. > Naturally, the generated ChangeLog will be less informative than one written > by humans (it won't say what changed in a function, it will just say that > the function has been modified), but since that procedure was adopted by glibc, > and is mentioned in the proposed standards.texi change, then it must have been > considered an acceptable compromise. I have yet to see this accepted as GNU policy. And at least personally, having a ChangeLog in a tarball that just says which function was changed on what date is almost useless to me (and I do sometimes need to work without access to the VCS repositories).