[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] ChangeLog usage ..

[Lukas Fleischer]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 09:18:06AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 14/01/12 08:51, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 07:44:31PM +0100, Seblu wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Lukas Fleischer
> >> <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:49:39AM -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
> >>> I'm all for writing useful (and detailed, if necessary) commit messages
> >>> instead of writing ChangeLog entries. We use a VCS for some reason.
> >>> Using proper commit messages makes changes damn easy to follow without
> >>> having to maintain these inconvenient ChangeLog files.
> >> It's more easy to read a human changelog, (shipped with packages which
> >> don't needs to connect to archlinux.org), than developer oriented
> >> commits.
> > 
> > I don't really see any big difference here. Commit messages should be
> > detailed and comprehensible as well. I'm not sure what you mean by
> > "developer oriented" but if your commit messages cannot be understood by
> > any user, you're probably doing something wrong :)
> > 
> > Check [1] for an example of how a commit message should look like.
> 
> While I agree that a good commit message should be used, that is a side
> point to the original email.
> 
> What was being asked was that if someone chooses to maintain a ChangeLog
> for their package, then you should also update the ChangeLog file if you
> make an update to that package.

Agreed, and I'm also for keeping the maintainer's PKGBUILD formatting if
you update a package (unless it breaks something, of course).

Sorry for being slightly off-topic and turning this into a "ChangeLog
vs. commit log" discussion.

> 
> Allan