Re: Structured Changelogs for ELPA packages

Richard Stallman <[email protected]> writes:

>   > I know this will be controversial, but if we want to maintain that
>   > changelogs are for humans and not machines, the solution is to use an
>   > LLM to produce a standardized changelog from the freeform changelog.
>
> It is beyond radical to proclaim something weird, and with drawbacks,
> as "the" solution.  Why ignore the solution that we have always made
> to work?  That is, to adopt a format and follow it.

I don't think my statement was weird or radical, but perhaps there was a
misunderstanding. Let me attempt to clarify.

Mandating a format is a perfectly good solution, but the disadvantage is
that formats have to be standardized.  Everyone has to conform.

If you instead really want to accept any human-readable changelog format
(what has historically been allowed), with the advantage that no one has
to change what they are doing, yet still transform or process it in a
structured manner, then an LLM is the appropriate solution to that
problem.