[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Using VC for change descriptions
From: |
Joseph Myers |
Subject: |
Re: Using VC for change descriptions |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:42:29 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) |
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I suggest looking at the glibc commit logs that already exist. I and
> many
> > other contributors already write the overall explanation of the changeset
> > as well as the ChangeLog entry (the ChangeLog entry then may or may not
> > also be included in the text of the commit message, but for this purpose
> > one would ignore it when trying to understand based on the commit
> messages
>
> Would you please send me a sample to look at? I will look at it.
I've attached the glibc logs since the last release (output of "git log
glibc-2.26..HEAD"). The logs are very long, so you probably only want to
look at a few samples.
(I don't actually think simply looking at example logs is a particularly
useful experiment, since the best uses of logs are *active* - given some
concrete issue with a package, working on that issue with reference to the
version control history whenever that's useful.)
> But what exactly is the question you suggest I could answer
> by looking at it?
My comment was in reply to your "Then we can try understanding changes in
two ways: based on change logs as we write them, and based on that
rewritten history, and see whether it makes a big difference.".
So the point would be to try understanding changes based on these logs
(minus the ChangeLog entries, where included in the logs), compared to
understanding them using the ChangeLog entries as well (sometimes included
in these logs, otherwise available in the glibc repository).
But in both cases I think that if you want to understand an individual
change, the logs are best used together with the diffs themselves rather
than in isolation. So the question is something like: how easy is it to
understand changes from the changeset-level logs plus diffs (minus
ChangeLog entries), compared to attempting the same but with the ChangeLog
entries available as well as the changeset-level logs and diffs?
(Some of the existing changeset-level descriptions may have insufficient
information, or nothing beyond the ChangeLog entries. If we allow GNU
packages not to use ChangeLog format, it will be important for packages
choosing not to use ChangeLog format to ensure that sufficiently detailed
commit messages are used instead. For some simple changes, just a summary
line may be sufficient, but many will need more detailed descriptions.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
address@hidden
glibc-logs.gz
Description: application/gzip
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, (continued)
Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Mike Gerwitz, 2018/01/01
Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Joseph Myers, 2018/01/09
Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Richard Stallman, 2018/01/15
Re: Using VC for change descriptions,
Joseph Myers <=
Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2018/01/02
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Joseph Myers, 2018/01/02
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2018/01/02
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Joseph Myers, 2018/01/02
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Mike Gerwitz, 2018/01/03
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2018/01/03
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Joseph Myers, 2018/01/03
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Paul Eggert, 2018/01/03
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, John Darrington, 2018/01/04
- Re: Using VC for change descriptions, Richard Stallman, 2018/01/08