From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Espie To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Conerned about lack of detail in ChangeLog/commit messges Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:38:00 -0000 Message-id: <200006111338.PAA26714@quatramaran.ens.fr> References: <200006091530.LAA28216@mal-ach.watson.ibm.com> <20000609085131.P55675@dragon.nuxi.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-06/msg00322.html Yeah, gcc doesn't make a sensible utilisation of cvs, does it ? At least it's somewhat different from most other projects that use it that I know. The proposal of generating the cvs logs from the Changelog is somewhat backwards. It would probably be much, much simpler to generate a ChangeLog out of cvs commit messages. In fact, this is how other projects usually do it. Cvs does yield fairly nice commit messages. That would solve one specific problem: all files changed would be automatically mentioned in the commit message. The format can be tweaked afterwards to be as compliant with the Changelog entry as one wishes... In fact, I would very much prefer having the Changelog match the committed date, not some other somewhat artificial dates. There are lots of other ways to refer to a patch, the entry in the gcc-patches archive comes to mind. And David is quite correct that using the ChangeLog to browse through the history of one file is a pain... One loses most of the features that make cvs useful. For instance, `cvs annotate' is almost useless on gcc, since it is very hard to go back from gcc revisions to Changelog entry. I understand that this is somewhat hard to change, but consider it. There might be a good reason why other projects are actually USING cvs for day-to-day work, might there not ? :)