Re: time to retire ChangeLog?

> * Raymond Toy <[email protected]> [2017-02-23 08:19:42 -0800]:
>
> I think there's a huge difference between history (source control
> system) and explanation of the history (changelog and commit
> messages).

VC contains both history (diffs) and explanations (commit messages).

> If people wrote good commit messages, then a Changelog wouldn't be
> needed.

Agreed.

I have never heard a coherent explanation of how ChangeLog entries
should differ from commit messages.
If a ChangeLog is a part of the commit, Emacs copies the ChangeLog entry
into the buffer editing the commit message.

So, as far as I am concerned, `hg log` and `less ChangeLog` should be
the same.

> On many open source projects the commit messages basically tend to
> suck.
> But I've seen bad Changelog entries too.

The only cure is self- or external(code review) discipline.

One has to _care_ about what one is doing to make coherent commits and
write informative and clear explanations (Changelog or commit messages).

I think 

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on darwin Ns 10.3.1504
http://steingoldpsychology.com http://www.childpsy.net
http://iris.org.il http://www.dhimmitude.org https://jihadwatch.org
Don't hit a man when he's down -- kick him; it's easier.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
clisp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clisp-devel