Re: [Feature request] gitlog-to-changelog: don't cluster multiple ChangeLog entries under the same "date line"

[Stefano Lattarini]

On 12/23/2011 03:38 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Hello Gnulibers.
>>
>> Currently, the `gitlog-to-changelog' script clusters ChangeLog entries with
>> the same date together, placing them under a single "date line" in the
>> generated output.
>>
>> So we have something like this:
>>
>>
>>   $ ./build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog -- -n 2 76d222b
>>
>>   2011-12-22  Jim Meyering  <address@hidden>
>>
>>         correct previous ChangeLog entry: s/set -x/set -e/
>>         Spotted by Stefano Lattarini.
>>
>>         init.sh: avoid unwarranted test failure when using "set -x"
>>         * tests/init.sh (compare): Ignore nonzero exit from 
>> compare_dev_null_.
>>         Otherwise, in a test script that uses "set -x" (like many in vc-dwim)
>>         a use like "compare exp out" would get evoke an unconditional 
>> failure.
>>
>>
>> where I'd like to see something like this instead:
>>
>>  $ ./build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog -- -n 2 76d222b
>>
>>  2011-12-22  Jim Meyering  <address@hidden>
>>
>>         correct previous ChangeLog entry: s/set -x/set -e/
>>         Spotted by Stefano Lattarini.
>>
>>  2011-12-22  Jim Meyering  <address@hidden>
>>
>>         init.sh: avoid unwarranted test failure when using "set -x"
>>         * tests/init.sh (compare): Ignore nonzero exit from 
>> compare_dev_null_.
>>         Otherwise, in a test script that uses "set -x" (like many in vc-dwim)
>>         a use like "compare exp out" would get evoke an unconditional 
>> failure.
>>
>> This latter format would match the current practice used in the Automake
>> hand-maintained ChangeLog.
>>
>> Would you consider adding an option to gitlog-to-changelog to support such a
>> format?
> 
> Why?  Solely for consistency, after you've made the switch from
> a manually-maintained to an automatically-generated ChangeLog file?
> 
No, rather because, if you write git commit messages with multiple paragraphs
in the commit body (as I often do, and intend to continue to), the latter
format becomes essential.

> Do you consider the duplication of the identical-date-name lines useful?
>
Yes; see above.

> The default format emitted by gitlog-to-changelog matches
> what emacs' changelog-mode does.  That seems consistent with
> the "avoid duplication" philosophy and also tends to keep the
> ChangeLog file more compact.
>

I hope the above argument will make you reconsider this position; if not, I
can still try to implement the feature myself, and keep the patched script
in the Automake repository -- so no big deal either way.

Thanks,
  Stefano