This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: ChangeLog entry complexity
- From: Petr Baudis <pasky at ucw dot cz>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Ondřej Bílka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:02:31 +0100
- 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> <51508192 dot 90702 at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:55:46PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 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?
I think writing detailed change logs is absolutely great. For example,
browsing the history of the Git version control system or (mostly) the
Linux kernel is quite pleasurable and you have a good chance of learning
the complete background and all else you need to know about a change
from the Git history.
But that is very different from the ChangeLogs, which just describe
*what* has been changed in great detail, something quite obvious from
the diffs themselves.
Petr "Pasky" Baudis