On Fri, 2020-04-24 at 22:01 +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 24 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 05:48:38PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > > > Of course, better would be to remove ChangeLogs entirely (including not > > > > putting anything like them into a commit message), because they are > > > > largely not useful and are just make-work. > > > > > > I disagree. I find them quite useful. > > > > For what? And, can that be provided some other way? > > I often have a look at them when reviewing a patch. It is great when > they clearly indicate whether a change is some form of restructuring or > a functional change and broadly speaking what it is. Then I just know > what to look for. > > I also find writing them useful as it forces me to go through every > patch one last time before submitting it :-) If you spend some time > configuring your text editor and git, the boilerplate stuff can be > generated automatically. Agreed on all the points above. I can't count how many patches I've written through the years, then got to the ChangeLog step and realized that further work was needed.
> > I do not think this can be provided in any other way that would not > resemble a ChangeLog. I do support the effort to put them into commit > messages only though (and then perhaps generate the files from that). That's where I lean as well. I could also live with the ChangeLog being generated by a commit hook and the like. Ultimately it's the manual steps in applying patches that I want to eliminate from our workflows and the ChangeLog file consistently results in the need for manual intervention. jeff
