Re: ChangeLog entries

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 08:05, Sascha Brawer wrote:
> Here's a question about ChangeLog entries: Would it make sense to have
> separate commits (and thus ChangeLog entries) for unrelated changes?

Yes for completely unrelated changes they should be committed seperately
(especially when doing a formatting change and a logical change, do them
in two separate commits). But do try to do a commit of as much
things/files that are done at the same time which can logically be seen
as part of the same change/cleanup etc.

> The guile guidelines do not mention this, but I personally think it can
> be rather unpleasant to sift through dozens of irrelevant lines when
> trying to find out what has happened to a file.
> 
> For example, the attached log message does not seem to be very helpful.
> (The author is omitted in order to not pick on anybody in particular).
> IMHO, such bulk commits make it harder to track changes.

The three log messages that you quote seem logically grouped together.
O, I see you mean that they are actually one commit.
Then it would have made sense to just use the New files/Regenerate entry
since logically it was just the adding of a bunch of new files (that
they were edited offline a couple of times isn't really reflected in out
CVS so it doesn't have to to be mentioned (except maybe if it comes from
resyncing with another tree, like libgcj, then it is a good idea to add
all relevant changes that were done in the other tree to our ChangeLog).
I would certainly made this into three commits but would have just used
the given separate ChangeLog entries as shown since eacht entry is
clearly a group of changes that is related.


Cheers,

Mark