Hello, >> The "changelog entries are like an undo list" is a WTF, to me this is what >> `patch -R` is for... > > Not quite, because the change log shows the language-level view of the > changes,
I don't understand "language-level view of the changes" > It makes it easy to answer questions such as “when did we change this > function?”, “when did we introduce that variable”, etc. This looks suspicously close to *-blame functionality, looks script (or any other automated way) -material to me. Personally I've never done this by searching changelogs (and here I show my lack of participation in GNU-standardized projects)... > I see. The commit title is definitely what you’re interested in here. Yes, but this is a layered (recursive) approach, I dig a level when the previous one looked interesting, or backtrack. This allows to cheaply skip irrelevant material (with a small miss rate). > I understand it can be frustratingly short No, for my usage it's totally useless, I never had to search that way, way less efficient that a git blame (+ refinements) > but then again it’s no substitute for the full discussions or code > explanations [...] > AIUI Linux-style commit logs are not change logs, but explanations. I > still strongly believe that explanations believe in code. Let's agree to disagree Cheers -- Vincent Legoll