On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:09:45AM -0500, James Westby wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 08:39 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > > also sprach Guido Günther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.11.08.1419 +0100]: > > > Does this look like a worthwhile extension to the current changelog > > > format? For me it makes reviewing changes a lot easier. > > > > I think this is very important to have, but why put them at the > > front? Changelogs are for consumption by humans and machines, and > > humans have it easier if they can just start reading on the left > > side and get the information they want. Machines don't really care > > very much. > > > > So, similar to how we close bugs, how about > > > > * fixed segfault during daemon startup (Closes: #7005180) [fed3f3d] > > > > instead? > > You mean > > [fc5473a06be960382582ddbfb40e2a5f824be122] > > don't you? You can abbreviate that (git-rev-parse(1), see --short).
> > I don't think we need a VCS identifier there. I don't see why anyone > would specify a bzr revision id in a git package. > > How would this differ from using annotate on the changelog? Do some > people write the changelog at the end? Using annotate on the changelog assumes you're committing the changelog entry together with the actual change. That's not a workflow everyone uses and IMHO makes little sense when using a DVCS since merging branches from different people/places creates unnecessary conflicts in the changelog. Cheers, -- Guido _______________________________________________ vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list vcs-pkg-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/vcs-pkg-discuss