Hi, On Fri, May 01 2020, Jeff Law wrote: > 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 can relate to that :-) > >> >> 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 Please note that this would change the commit hash from what the author had on their computer, which would be a bit unfortunate. But generating them along with the "Daily bump" seems like a nice alternative. Thanks, Martin > 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
