Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 05:20:30AM CEST: > On 6 Sep 2010, at 03:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Except that the autotools project logs contain lots of S-O-B entries > > which explicitly do not have that particular meaning. :-/ > > I suppose we can create an annotation for logs that have a non-compliant > SoB as if it was any other commit log typo we want to override to make > sure gitlog-to-changelog creates a beautiful ChangeLog -- after we document > our policy, and for entries going back to the beginning of the year in > which we decide to start using gitlog-to-changelog. > > Even if we wait until next year to start using gitlog-to-changelog, I > think it worthwhile to know in advance how we will cope with a commit log > that needs a correction.
Definitely, yes. I'm afraid I still don't quite understand the intended semantics though. All S-O-B entries are to be co-authors of the patch, starting from, say, January 1, 2011? I wonder whether it makes sense to ask for a more consistent notation upstream, or push for one. It'd be nice if gitk, cgit, and the like, could also display things as intended. Cheers, Ralf
