This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: ChangeLog entry complexity
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt dot net>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Petr Baudis <pasky at ucw dot cz>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Ondřej Bílka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:03:33 +0530
- 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> <20130325205300 dot GA24293 at dcvr dot yhbt dot net> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1303261741360 dot 8202 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 26 March 2013 23:25, Joseph S. Myers <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think we *should* move to putting both title lines (as explicitly
> described in the GNU Coding Standards) and rationale at the top of
> ChangeLog entries, in addition to the descriptions of "what" changed, and
A description of what changed is pointless IMO because that bit can be
read from the patch itself. The 'why' is important and the commit log
should be a good enough place for it.
> also putting that detailed patch description in the commit messages. But
> this would require that the detailed description be reviewed for
> formatting and English usage in as much detail as the rest of the patch.
The blurb accompanying a patch submission should usually be clear
enough and wherever it is not, reviewers could make a note of it. I
don't think a strict language review is necessary as long as what is
written is clear enough.
Also, while git has only one author 'field', the accepted practice is
to have a 'Signed-Off-By' for each contributor to that patch. That's
a much more convenient compromise than writing convoluted ChangeLog
entries that hardly anyone reads.