On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 13:28:44 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > Of course, git commit messages can be done poorly, just as ChangeLog files > can be done poorly. Developers should use good practice in writing commit > messages. Although a common approach is to use ChangeLog-style format in > commit messages, they need less detail than traditional ChangeLog files > since the version control system lets you easily go to the diff > corresponding to the commit.
This is what I do with my projects now. Guix and Emacs do this well too, for example. To Richard's point: while Git provides a wealth of information and tools to process it, it sucks looking over diffs when you want a high-level overview of what changed. rms: Git does not provide tools to replace the type of ChangeLog entries that you are describing. But as Paul said, a combination of a good commit message and a diff can make ChangeLog entries more concise. With that said, they can't be too concise, because users of a source distribution don't have direct access to the repository. I'm in favor of the hybrid approach (ChangeLog-style commit message)---when looking through commits, you see the relevant ChangeLog entry right there, rather than having to cross-reference with a separate ChangeLog file. -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B 2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05 https://mikegerwitz.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
