From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37937384801C for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:47:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 37937384801C Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37452) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMXSe-0004wB-08; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:47:48 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2552 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lMXSd-0007P0-Fe; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:47:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:47:46 +0200 Message-Id: <83pmzxdegd.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Luis Machado Cc: vapier@gentoo.org, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <2012fb21-38f2-3d1c-62c8-52d94d19e243@linaro.org> (message from Luis Machado on Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:31:25 -0300) Subject: Re: sim: replacing ChangeLog files with online git logs References: <83ft0zjys1.fsf@gnu.org> <83lfarhwjq.fsf@gnu.org> <83eegjhuuq.fsf@gnu.org> <8335wyj461.fsf@gnu.org> <83tup9disi.fsf@gnu.org> <2012fb21-38f2-3d1c-62c8-52d94d19e243@linaro.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:47:52 -0000 > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > From: Luis Machado > Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:31:25 -0300 > > > I'm not sure I agree with your skepticism. And OTOH, producing the > > ChangeLog from Git logs takes mere seconds and wastes no development > > time. So I think on balance there's very little price to pay for > > something that some people may value. Why refuse to pay that small > > price and humor those few people? > > Are you proposing simply feeding the git log through the script and > saving that to a file? Even if the output is less detailed than the > ChangeLog entries we have now? That's the idea, yes. Of course, for such a generated ChangeLog to be useful, the Git commit log messages should be informative enough.