On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:17:59PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > > I believe that whatever we do, somebody will still have to read the full log > > and check each entry in CHANGES to avoid listing a lot of trivial stuff, > > and to make sure the most impactful changes appear at the top. > > I don't think so. Not if the changelog annotations are used well (as > with writing log message in general, this probably requires practice > to get right -- it'd be a part of reviewing each other's changes to > potentially give feedback on the (optional) changelog annotation). > > The intention is that the RM doesn't need to go through all the full > log messages in detail, but that he can trust the output of > write-changelog, combined with trust in the quality of the log > messages involved.
OK, in that light it all makes sense and I agree this is worth a try. And if we don't manage to pull it off well enough, nothing is lost compared to the status quo. Thanks for driving this forward!
