Re: changelog rotation...

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>]

> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:15:34 +0200
> From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
> > 
> > So the current proposal is:
> > 
> >         * rename ChangeLog-9X to ChangeLog-199X
> >         * split ChangeLog-9091 into ChangeLog-1990 and ChangeLog-1991        
> >         * split ChangeLog-2000 out of ChangeLog.
> 
> I suggest this instead:
> 
>          * rename ChangeLog-9X to ChangeLog.9X
>          * split ChangeLog-9091 into ChangeLog.90 and ChangeLog.91        
>          * split ChangeLog.00 out of ChangeLog.

I can also suggest alternative schemes that you might want to
consider.  One possibility is to rename the files to ChangeLog.1,
ChangeLog.2, ChangeLog.3, etc., starting with the oldest one.  This is
what Emacs does in its distribution.

Emacs also splits ChangeLog files by versions, not by years.  Thus, a
new ChangeLog is started when a version X.YZ is released and work on
the next version begins.  (Since GDB uses branching, this would mean
to start a new ChangeLog when a certain version's branch is cut.)

I think splitting by version is better than by years, because it is
trivial to find out to what years does a certain ChangeLog file
belongs, by looking at its head and tail, whereas the opposite--find
out what version's ChangeLog entries are in which file--is not trivial
at all.

Btw, it is not necessary to have one ChangeLog per released version;
depending on the number of entries, several versions can live in the
same ChangeLog file.

If we do put each version on its own ChangeLog, we could have
ChangeLog.418, ChangeLog.500, etc.