This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: ChangeLog entry complexity
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Petr Baudis <pasky at ucw dot cz>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:40:04 +0200
- Subject: Re: ChangeLog entry complexity
- References: <20130224085129 dot GA5898 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20130311132836 dot GA6016 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20130311162425 dot DAD282C083 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130311174341 dot GA28265 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20130311174940 dot 0E0512C08D at topped-with-meat dot com> <513E4924 dot 4010500 at redhat dot com> <20130311214322 dot GC31274 at machine dot or dot cz> <20130311214635 dot 5B9D32C08F at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130325164624 dot GA6137 at machine dot or dot cz> <51508192 dot 90702 at redhat dot com>
On 03/25/2013 05:55 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Does anyone feel strongly that detailed change logs are limiting our
acceptance of new developers to the community?
GNU-style changelogs lead to under-documentation of changes in the
version control history, and in the long run, they make it more
difficult to work with the code base.
I'm not making this upâGNU policies encourage to duplicate information
found in the version control history, and explicitly discourage
providing context or a rationale:
<http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Log-Concepts.html#Change-Log-Concepts>
The suggestion to add relevant information in comments is good, but it
does not work at all when code is moved or deleted, and localized
comments still do not address the bigger picture.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team