From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36529 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2020 21:07:27 -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 36510 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2020 21:07:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=nonexistent, pay X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:07:25 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 01DL7Gdc023915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:07:21 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 01DL7Gdc023915 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=polymtl.ca; s=default; t=1581628041; bh=V+0bONGpqqcISDdtaXlJbrTyD4gClbDUYOAP9u7iDZg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Tbk0JEa9sMRC/mPZZFisBSIpOq8kGGyKlKkOSGavUVDTP9O1ox/KvjGmnt+Ms/1s1 PUimRkL1T5+PPHnqIHgEBZ4OygYrIrp4E3SFyeDik3WPogxFIf6FTeyieUL/XAyh+g 5jvFHDUoAiQ8skmk8/Wt8O3zjXBSbXiw9qBN12s4= Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCE311E4C2; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:07:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Using the vcs_to_changelog.py script To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <83imkbqhry.fsf@gnu.org> <83a75mqyry.fsf@gnu.org> <675991ee-28c0-ce5a-6327-c6ad80ccb1c3@polymtl.ca> <837e0qqpps.fsf@gnu.org> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <837e0qqpps.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00312.txt.bz2 On 2020-02-13 1:58 p.m., Eli Zaretskii wrote: > 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 We can write some guidelines for sure, it wouldn't hurt. But I think that as a project, we have already some quite good standards in terms of commit messages. These discussions already happen during reviews. And even with those guidelines written, we'll still need to pay attention to it, because I can assure you that we will still receive patches with bad or non-existent commit messages. >> 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. Sure, we can wait for this to become official. > 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). Indeed. Simon