This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: ChangeLog entry complexity


From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:38:20 +0000

> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, David Miller wrote:
> 
>> Are people working on the Linux kernel or other GIT projects without
>> a ChangeLog really working at a disadvantage because the tarballs
>> lack an automatically generated ChangeLog file?
> 
> When working out when a syscall was added to the Linux kernel on different 
> architectures (say) I generally find it easier to use the diffs between 
> release versions rather than the git history of individual changes.  
> Among other things, dates in git history reflect the date on which some 
> relevant commit was made in some git branch somewhere, and not when the 
> change actually made it to Linux's tree and so into kernel.org release 
> versions, which are what's relevant for --enable-kernel configuration in 
> glibc.
> 
> So, yes, a file that showed immediately the ordering of a change in 
> mainline Linux with respect to previous and subsequent release tags 
> (rather than its relation to a more complicated history involving lots of 
> other trees, which is also useful in other ways) would have its uses.

This is what "git describe" is for, it tells you the closest matching
named tag for a change.

Sorry, still not convinced of a ChangeLog's utility.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]