Re: Changes to "Contribution Checklist" -- Format of the contribution.

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 2/13/19 6:00 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
>> Executive Summary
>> =================
>>
>> I would like to propose that the "Contribution Checklist"
>> tell first time developers to send a 'git format-patch'
>> file or inlined text to the list for patch review instead
>> of a split patch and distinct ChangeLog.
> 
> We should be looking at what the instructions should be once the 
> ChangeLog-generation script is ready for use and ChangeLog entries don't 
> need writing manually in any form (for which something that works with 
> "git am" seems a good idea).  I don't think instructions for ChangeLog 
> entries are a particularly fruitful area in which to discuss changes other 
> than eliminating the manually-written ChangeLog entries.
 
I agree, and I think this cleanup is part of a process to get
towards that goal.

What I want to do is the following:

(a) We get consensus that we want a patch that is in the form
    generated by git format-patch.

(b) I rewrite the Contribution Checklist a bit to organize the
    information into a flow that looks like:
    - A list of things to do.
      - Has *one* central section on "ChangeLog" writing
        (ready to be deleted).
    - Commit, write commit message (ready to have new instructions added).
    - git-format patch.
    - Post.

(c) Cleanup the list to mention only things relevant to master.
    All legacy notes are removed to a legacy branches page.

(d) When the new ChangeLog script is read I will delete
    the "Write a Changelog" part of the list of things to do,
    and adjust the "write commit message" with newer instructions.

Does this seem sensible to you (even if it isn't the exact set of
steps you might take)?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.