On 12 Jan 2021 10:47, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> [2021-01-11 14:38:30 -0500]:
> > On 11 Jan 2021 12:00, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > > On 2021-01-11 6:05 a.m., Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > > > I think sim/ should follow the same policy as gdb/ for now.  Do feel
> > > > free to raise this as a suggestion for gdb/ in general though, it
> > > > would be an interesting conversation to observe.
> > > 
> > > Last time I tried the gitlog-to-changelog script on GDB, it produced
> > > horrible results.  Probably because it was not designed for C++.
> > > 
> > > Making a script to produce ChangeLogs for C code is already very
> > > difficult, making it work with good results for C++ would be even
> > > worst.  And most importantly, I think it would be wasted development
> > > time.
> > 
> > to be clear, it isn't generating entries exactly like we write.  it's
> > using the git commit logs with formatted dates.  so i don't think this
> > applies exactly anymore.  so it's inline with the GNU's VCS principles:
> > https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Logs.html
> > (and that also recommends just using gitlog-to-changelog).
> 
> I read this page, and especially the part that talks about using
> gitlog-to-changelog, and I don't find their argument compelling.
> 
> Early in the page they list some uses for ChangeLogs, which basically
> boils down to performing "software forensics".  Their benefits are all
> good, but IMHO are all covered (and covered better) by what the VCS
> provide.
> 
> At the end of the page they say if you don't maintain a ChangeLog then
> use a script to generate one in case people want to look at the
> ChangeLog.  But they fail to explain what use a ChangeLog is in a
> release tree.  The same argument could just as easily be used to
> justify including a poem in the release; it should be there in case
> someone wants to look at it.
> 
> For me the question is what benefit does a ChangeLog offer in a
> release tree?  When I look through the 7 points (in favour of
> ChangeLogs) raised on the above page I don't see what value any of
> those things have given only a release tree.
> 
> If we really wanted to include something informative inside each
> release then I'd be most tempted to just do something like:
> 
>    git log --stat last-release-tag...new-release-tag > GIT-LOG
> 
> That would give people a far more detailed understanding of what has
> changed.

the current gitlog-to-changelog script that my patches here use does
generate a file akin to what you're recommending with GIT-LOG (albeit
without --stat).

> But honestly, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if someone
> wants to dig into the source history, just clone the repo.... and let
> ChangeLogs burn!

i don't have a problem with dumping `git log` to ChangeLog files as
part of the release tarball creation.  i know we're all pretty well
integrated with the source repos and know how to find this info, but
sometimes people who download these releases are not.  there is also
the slight angle of network connectivity not being as ubiquitous for
all users around the world as it might be for you & i.

but really my only very strong preference is to not ever have to
write another ChangeLog entry by hand, whether it be in the files
themselves, or inlined in the commit message, or attached to an
e-mail sent to the list.  i can take/leave every other idea.
-mike