This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: ChangeLog entry complexity

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Eric Wong wrote:

> > Given the messy state of the history converted from CVS (sometimes the 
> > heuristics to combine separate CVS commits to separate files into a single 
> > git commit helped, but sometimes they made things worse), in practice the 
> > ChangeLogs are often a better place to find all the history in one place 
> > (together with checking the old CVS repository in tricky cases).
> Old history becomes less relevant over time.  Old changelogs will
> always be available if needed.

A key point is *in one place* - it's easy to grep the ChangeLogs for 
references to a particular file name or function name.  (I've no idea how 
to get git to show all changes to a file of a given name, anywhere in the 
source tree a file of that name may have appeared at any time in the past 
- or to files whose names matched a given pattern - or to functions 
anywhere in the source tree with a given name, or whose names matched a 
given pattern.  The sysdeps structure of glibc makes those natural things 
to do.  But supposing git does have a way to list such changes based on 
patterns in file or function names, the "in one place" issue still 

> git has a "notes" feature which allows supplementing commit messages.

Any idea why this isn't used by gitlog-to-changelog to find the 
modifications to apply to those messages?

Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]