Mats Lidell writes:
I have had lots of good use of ChangeLogs before but with mercurial
it might be possible to move over to auto generating the ChangeLogs
or similar?
I'm afraid not. It's not really friendly to tarball testers, and at a
minimum to be helpful to them they shouldn't have to search backward
past the previous release to find a relevant change. Even for me as a
heavy user of VCS history it's often convenient to do C-u M-! hg log
--date >DATE-OF-LAST-RELEASE, and a pretty big PITA if that misses
some relevant commits.
If people find it to be a great burden to ensure that logs immediately
after a commit stay on the right side of each release point (and they
might, if we get active; I don't have much intuition for the
dynamics), we could close the ChangeLogs at that point, and simply ask
all contributors to depend on the VCS history tools.
You will miss the detailed description of the change for each file
but you will gain the overall comments for the whole commit that
you now must go over to mercurial to see.
There's no need to abbreviate the per-file comments in a Mercurial
commit. Didier Verna's Patcher will copy all the logs for a changeset
into the commit message, for example, and it helps to ensure that all
the detail is there. I can't imagine it would be hard to point it at
a dummy ChangeLog that exists only for the duration of creating a
single changeset and commit. Alternatively the add-log family of
functions can probably be adapted independently of Patcher.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta