Re: Generating the ChangeLog files from the commit messages

[Bastien]

Hi Rasmus,

Rasmus <address@hidden> writes:

>> If ChangeLog files are generated, maintainers will have to edit lots
>> of contributed commits manually before applying them -- this will be
>> boring.
>
> As a offender I have observed that if a patch does not meet the commit
> message/ChangeLog requirements one will (often) be asked to resubmit
> following those prescriptions.

Yes.  I've taught myself to ask this to contributors, but still,
I continue to accept patches for which I edit the changelog myself.

> What are the types of mistakes you see?

You can basically take each advice from this page

  http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html#unnumbered-10

and imagine the errors: an empty changelog, line 1 way too long,
the ChangeLog does not start with a capital letter, sentences do
not end with a fullstop, etc.

> Could they be fixed by tougher reviews?

Let me first say that I'm fine with a very low entry barrier for Org
contributors and I don't like the idea of a rigid review process for
such a fun project.  Also, I'm not angry with misformed patches, I
often commit typos and errors myself: I just try to understand what
would make everyone's life easier.

If we had a ChangeLog in Org, people would very quickly learn from it
by just *reading* it--because it is here.  Even doing a simple ~$ git
log is too much for new committers, because they just think they know
how to write a changelog entry, probably bringing habits from other
software communities.

> Or is the issue with forgetful people with commit access?

People get commit access when other committers are confident they
won't have to fix their logs or to restate the rules, so that's really
just a problem with occasionnal contributors.

Best,

-- 
 Bastien