> >> ChangeLogs were great because they are local and don't > >> need to reach the repository. Using git this is no longer > >> a problem. > >> > > > > Not to be contrarian or anything (:->), but I'd be inclined to keep > > using ChangeLogs because they are so much more pleasant to use than > > git logs and their ilk. I've never encountered the locality argument, > > in fact. For me, the fact that a ChangeLog contains an easily > > searched change history AND allows the examination of individual > > changes without need for special tools, scripts, etc., makes it a > > pretty obvious technology for me. > > I still browse the history, but instead of "less ChangeLog", I > use "git log" and voila! I'm already in less.
Well, at last I understand why people like VC log files! It would NEVER have occurred to me to use 'less' for this purpose. For reading, editing, and modifying a change log, I use Emacs, as I do for all other files. Another question occurs to me. The ChangeLog is part of a source release, whether that be via VC system or tarball. It would be a shame to lose it when distributing releases as tarballs. How would you handle this? Paul Hilfinger
