> ChangeLog entries are trivial and quick to write, and save so much > time in the future. The small repetiveness is a insignificant price > to pay for the benefit of the ChangeLog file in various forms.
Repetiveness, even if small, is still a bad thing when a computer can do the task for you. They cannot be generated by a computer. Your remainder points do not address how ChangeLog entries are a bad thing, rather they show that git or current tooling around git is unsuitable for handling them nothing else. Cloning a repository is the de facto way of distributing source code nowadays. For the GNU project this is clearly false, our prefered way is to distribute tarballs. Maintaining ChangeLogs is a waste of time both for the developers writing them and for whoever is going to use it. Since maintainers and users clearly find them useful, calling it a waste of time is just a silly and dishonest argument.
