This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: ChangeLog entry complexity
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Petr Baudis <pasky at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:55:46 -0400
- Subject: Re: ChangeLog entry complexity
- References: <20130224085129 dot GA5898 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20130311132836 dot GA6016 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20130311162425 dot DAD282C083 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130311174341 dot GA28265 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20130311174940 dot 0E0512C08D at topped-with-meat dot com> <513E4924 dot 4010500 at redhat dot com> <20130311214322 dot GC31274 at machine dot or dot cz> <20130311214635 dot 5B9D32C08F at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130325164624 dot GA6137 at machine dot or dot cz>
On 03/25/2013 12:46 PM, Petr Baudis wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 02:46:35PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> My feeling is that it's a pretty good proxy for the level of attention to
>> detail that we want to instill in all our contributors anyway. So I think
>> the idea that being loose about this usefully lowers the barrier to entry
>> for new contributors is a false economy.
> I disagree with the opinion that requiring to do something just for the
> sake of proving "the level of attention to detail" is good economy, but
> I respect the current consensus and I'm satisfied that the tradition
> is re-evaluated time by time.
There was some good discussion recently on a Google+ thread I started
regarding the tradition of writing detailed change notes.
Does anyone feel strongly that detailed change logs are limiting our
acceptance of new developers to the community?
If anything the most difficult bar if the copyright assignment,
the rest is just work.