On 12/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 3, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote: > > > In my view, ChangeLog is mostly "write-only" from a developer's > > perspective. It's a document that the GNU project requires us to produce > > for > > ... a good example of compliance with the GPL: > > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. > > a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified > it, and giving a relevant date. > > > FWIW, I've used ChangeLogs to find problems a number of times in my 14 > years of work in GCC, and I find them very useful. When I need more > details, web-searching for the author of the patch and some relevant > keywords in the ChangeLog will often point at the relevant e-mail, so > burdening people with adding a direct URL seems pointless to me. It's > pessimizing the common case for a small optimization in far less > common cases.
Maybe Changelogs should be reserved for important changes. For instance, something like "Fixed a typo" is a complete waste. I doubt anyone looks ta a Changelog to see if someone fixed a typo recently or at any point in the past. Perhaps there could be some criteria so that not every single iota gets a log entry.
