For very many years (about 40), source-control systems provided a way to incorporate history-related information into the source that is checked in, so it travels with checked-out code. I don't see this used much anymore. I use systems that still will do it. I don't think Git is one of them, I suppose mainly because the full history goes into clones. This presumes that everyone who matters is using Git, of course.
I understand that it is not fashionable to record history, much commentary, or names in the source code of many open-source projects, all for a variety of reasons. It may well be that my natural habits, developed over a long period of time, are incompatible. So be it. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Peter Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 23:59 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: incubator-corinthia git commit: 0.07 .gitignore clean-up Also one other point I forgot to mention about history for releases - this is available from the git repository for anyone who wants it, by going to the tag/branch for that particular release. Many projects include a ChangeLog file in their release with a summary of what’s changed (though not as detailed as individual files or a complete git log). I think ChangeLog files make sense on a per-release basis, then people can use that as a guide if they want to go into the git log and see all the details. [ ... ]
