On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Tristan Van Berkom <t...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Cody Russell <brats...@gnome.org> wrote: > [....] >> Yeah, but the thing that sucks about versioned ChangeLogs is >> merging/rebasing your code. Typically you always leave writing a >> ChangeLog last for this reason, but it just makes so much more sense to >> be able to write your entry when you do your commit. >> >> If you're posting a branch for review or something, people can read your >> commit logs as well as the code.. but if you post patches for review, >> you probably don't post the ChangeLog with it because it'll get >> clobbered when you have to merge it into the tree. >> > > You always post ChangeLogs diffs with large patches, large patches > generally come to the maintainer in the form of a patch, with a single > changelog entry, the maintainer reviewing a branch doesnt want to > see the revision history of what happened on the branch, or why > you reverted that peice of code thats not actually in the patch > (and never made it into the baseline/trunk). > > Now if I can demand that a patch submitter provide the base minimum: > - A patch that applies to trunk > - A rich ChangeLog entry that describes what happens in the change > > Then why would I waste my time flipping through individual commit > logs ?
Dude, we have moved to git and you are still talking of versioned ChangeLog and favoring large patches? -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list