[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Larger patches tend to be less than readable, or even unavailable[1],
> while change logs give a consistent, human-readable description of
> what was wrong (and thus changed) and what's new.
I have some experience with ChangeLogs; usually I forget them and they
go out of date for some time (and then they become in essence
equivalent to the current NEWS file), or I remember to do M-x
add-change every time, and they balloon. The same thing happens with
RCS/CVS: often I correct a lot of small things and then doing ci/co is
annoying for a single line fix.
To me the ChangeLog looks as if it is designed for documenting small
fixes. Often I go around in the source code like Conan the Barbarian,
sawing and nailing pieces of code. The ChangeLog then is annoying as
well; it starts with emacs allways misguessing the location that has
been changed.
I think the approach with the plain and simple NEWS file suits me
better, but maybe I'll have a second try.
> [1] This seems to be the case with Lilypond -- no patch available
> since 0.1.48. Of course I could make the patches myself, given enough
> disk space, but then again...
> --
this is because of hairyness of the make system in previous versions.
I'll try to make patches starting next version.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** GNU LilyPond - The Music Typesetter
http://www.cs.ruu.nl/people/hanwen/lilypond/index.html
