Kai Koehne (10 February 2017 16:21) wrote: > To sum the discussion here and also on gerrit up : There's no > consensus on making [ChangeLog] entries mandatory, or making the > [ChangeLog] field enabled by default.
Indeed. > Anyhow, Ossi had an interesting third suggestion on > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/183244/: >> how about this for an idea: we add a new gerrit category "ChangeLog" >> which needs a +1. it would be auto-set by the bot if a changelog file >> is touched, otherwise a reviewer needs to set it. easy to implement, >> reliable (well, as much as the reviewers), and adds no noise to the >> commit messages. Note that this speaks of "a changelog file" rather than tags in commits; I do think this is a better approach, although I do also exhort everyone to keep your changelog files organised on some *other* model than "make each addition at the end" - e.g. sort by category, like the existing ChangeLog tags, and put related changes near each other - since any model that makes all additions at the same place *will* get conflicts all the time. Anything to ensure contemporary changes happen in different places is better than always conflicting. > I understand that this would not be hard to do. This way nobody is > forced to write changelog entries, but it requires a conscious click > from the reviewer to say 'Yes, this does _not_ use a ChangeLog'. > > Any strong opinion against this? Not from this quarter; if Ossi can teach Gerrit to remind me to think about whether each change, that lacks one, wants a change log; that sounds like a good solution to me. Be sure to include a link to the wiki page that says what tags to use and what should be in the change log. Eddy. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development