bug#9847: [PATCH 3/3] maint: use gnulib's gitlog-to-changelog instead of a ChangeLog file.

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Peter,

On 31 Oct 2011, at 22:24, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Gary V. Vaughan skrev 2011-10-23 18:17:
>> We already have to enter all the ChangeLog relevant information into the git
>> commit log.  Instead of worrying about keeping them all in sync, this patch
>> generates the current year ChangeLog from the git logs using a gnulib script.
>> At the beginning of the year, we can still rotate it out into ChangeLog.2011
>> and let the script carry on generating next years ChangeLog.
>> 
>> It would have been even better to generate all of the ChangeLogs on demand,
>> but the formatting differences and missing logs for many of our historic
>> commits dating back to CVS especially look awful, so this is a good 
>> compromise
>> between making maintenance as low-friction as possible and having ugly 
>> unreadable
>> early ChangeLogs.
>> 
>> I'll push in 72 hours, pending review comments in the mean time.
>> 
>> * ChangeLog: Removed.
>> * HACKING (Editing 'ChangeLog'): Removed. Renumbered other sections to
>> compensate.
>> * bootstrap.conf (gnulib_modules): Add gitlog-to-changelog.
>> * Makefile.am (ChangeLog): Generate the ChangeLog for 2011...
>> (dist-hook): ...from the output of `git log' before rolling a
>> distribution tarball.
> 
> Sorry for the late response,

No worries :)

> but *all* relevant info from the ChangeLog is
> generally *not* included in the git commit message. E.g. commit 72266fce
> "docs: improve description of -no-undefined." where the mention of
> co-author Matěj Týč is thrown out the window by this change.

That's true, and an unfortunate limitation of git.  We can potentially fit
two authors in by specifying one as with --author and the other as the
committer, but even then the gitlog-to-changelog script in gnulib doesn't
try to put that back into the generated ChangeLog file. :(

> There are many more patches with more that one author in the ChangeLog,
> and I don't think any of them has any mention of co-authors in their
> git commit message.

I think the best way to handle that is to revert the ChangeLog file for
2011 (which is very small anyway, and almost at an end too), and then to
find a way to put co-authors in the body of the gitlog message of future
commits so that gitlog-to-changelog can reconstitute a multi-author
commit.  WDYT?

I'm still on a huge kick to reduce the maintenance overhead involved in
looking after libtool, so I'm loathe to throw the baby out with the bathwater
by refusing to use gitlog-to-changelog altogether... I'll look into whether
there's some way to add 'Signed-off-by:' style Co-author meta-data to a git
commit, and patching upstream gitlog-to-changelog to take it into account.

Cc:ing the smart folks at bug-gnulib in case some one has encountered and
solved this problem already...

Cheers,
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)