On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 09:45:36PM -0700, James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
I was surprised not too long ago when a project changed it's procedures to eliminate the ChangeLog. My first reaction was to believe I'd miss it and that commit logs would never adequately substitute, because they were invariably terse and often cryptic.
I've found several reasons that commit logs are terse and often useless: - People perhaps haven't seen how useful they can be when they are good. - They aren't part of what gets reviewed. - They can't be changed after you've committed them. People who are used to working in an email-patches model basically get all of these, at least when the collaboration works well. Now I also see why Linus says that tarballs and patches are a better revision control system than CVS or SVN. David -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
