[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ChangeLogs
From: |
Thorsten Meyer |
Subject: |
Re: ChangeLogs |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:10:04 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090706) |
John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 18-Jan-2009, Thorsten Meyer wrote:
>
> | I also like this solution. Yet I am still a little confused about what it
> means in detail. Let me
> | try a little recap. The proposal seems to be this:
> | - We no longer write ChangeLog entries
> | - Instead write commit messages like in John's example:
> |
> | one line summary
> |
> | * file1.cc (function): What changed.
> | (other_function): Other change.
> | * file2.cc (function): Another change.
> |
> | - The old ChangeLog files are renamed to ChangeLog.number
> | - ChangeLog files are generated using
> | hg log --style=changelog
> | with releases of octave.
> |
> | I have a few questions:
> | - how to we credit contributions of people who do not push to savannah
> themselves in the future?
>
> When you create the changeset, you can use the
>
> --user "user name <address@hidden>"
>
> option to commit, qnew, or qrefresh. That way the specified user name
> shows up in the commit log instead of your ID. I also recomment using
> the --currentdate option to qnew or qrefresh so the timestamp on the
> patch is updated each time you refresh a patch in the MQ. I have this
> as a default in my .hgrc file:
>
> [defaults]
> qnew = --currentdate --currentuser
> qrefresh = --currentdate
>
> | I think we should add the name of the contributor to the commit message
> (unless
> | contributor=committing person).
>
> I think all that needs to be done is for you to use the --user option
> when commiting a change.
>
> | - Should we also add the creation date of the patch?
>
> I don't see that this date is important.
>
> | - Will there be some correspondence between the names of the NEWS files
> and the names of the
> | corresponding (autogenerated) ChangeLog files?
>
> The NEWS file should be created by hand. It should list user-visible
> changes. Ideally, each changeset should include
>
> a patch for the sources that meets the coding conventions
>
> a commit log entry in the format above
>
> a NEWS file entry if there is a user-visible change
>
> an update to the user manual if there is a user-visible change
>
> I know that I've been quite negligent when it comes to updating the
> NEWS file and user manual, and currently we don't require contributors
> to have all these things done before accepting a patch (mostly for
> fear of making the barrier to contributing too high). Plus, until now
> we've not really had much of a guide for contributors. So I've tended
> to fix up formatting issues and write ChangeLog entries myself. But
> as the number of contributors increases, we may want to be more strict
> in the requirements, so that contributors are doing some of this work
> instead of us. But we'll have to make a case for why these rules
> matter, as my sense is that many contributors don't see the point.
> But I certainly think it is important for the sources to have a
> consistent appearance as it makes them easier to read.
>
> | - Or will there be only one big ChangeLog file containing everything
> changed from now on?
>
> Yes, there will only be one ChangeLog file at the top level in the tar
> file distributions.
>
What happened to the plan (or was it a plan already?) to move the ChangeLog
entries into the mercurial commit messages?
regards
Thorsten
- Re: ChangeLogs,
Thorsten Meyer <=