Re: To ChangeLog or not to ChangeLog, that is the question
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
However, there is one more thing where I disagree with Kyle: I
don't
think ChangeLogs should be exact descriptions of changes. We have CVS
for that. In my opinion, something like "would return the wrong
value", or "fixed counter incrementing" are perfectly fine ChangeLog
entries.
Actually, all I expect from the ChangeLog entry are two things:
1. Is the change interesting? Ie. if it is only changing white
space, indentation, spelling I'll usually want to skip looking at that
specific diff.
2. Something of a clue as to why the change was made. The two
examples Hrvoje gives above are acceptable, IMO.
ChangeLog should be regarded as a "conceptual undo list" of
changes,
not as a plain-English replacement for `diff -u'.
I agree.
Hrvoje has also made the suggestion that delimiting all the ChangeLog
files with entries of the form:
1998-06-19 SL Baur <steve(a)altair.xemacs.org>
* XEmacs 21.0-pre3 is released.
would be useful. I agree and it would be even more useful to have the
CVS tag included:
1998-06-19 SL Baur <steve(a)altair.xemacs.org>
* XEmacs 21.0-pre3 is released (r21-0b46).