On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> I really dislike ChangeLog files, they predate any source control > version. Now CVS/SVN/Git/Whatever nicely replaces that. So generating > it automatically is the way to go. of course I disagree. Mainly because of an experience i had with autotools: for the EFL, I had to check if I didn't use macros that were too recent, or on the contrary if they were old enough to replace them by newer ones. If I had to look at all the svn logs, i doubt that i would have finished that work today (there are a lot of macro / features in autoconf, automake and libtool). On the contrary, I just opened the ChangeLog files, did a search in it, and it was quite fast for me to find the informations. That's why I think that, if it helped me, a changeLog can help other people. Note that I agree with raster's position here: noting in a ChangeLog only the most important changes. For example, even if I had committed in eet repo (only formatting and autotools stuff, iirc), i didn't modified the ChangeLog (Well, actually, i added one entry, to mention that the compilation can be done with Visual Studio). So the ChangeLog does not grows too much and has only important cahnges in it. That's my opinion as a user of a tool. And i think that there are a lot of users who don't know how to use cvs, svn or git and are quite happy to have some ChangeLog files. Vincent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
