Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Scenario: J. Random Luser has been lurking on xemacs-beta and comes
up with his first patch to XEmacs. Here it is:
[...]
Martin, I can relate to your point, but I see some problems in it.
Maintainer to JRL: Could you add a ChangeLog for that change?
JRL to Maintainer: You're kidding, right?
Maintainer to JRL: Nope.
JRL to Maintainer: F!(* you.
Did we just lose an XEmacs contributor?
No. I wouldn't want to work with a person who says `Fine You' so
easily anyway.
I currently have submitted patches that have not been applied due to
lack of ChangeLog.
I believe this is wrong. I also believe it's wrong when Kyle harasses
people about their changelogs not being precise enough.
Yes, changelogs serve a very useful purpose, but they are not
religion. When a changelog addition is not needed, it's not needed.
For example, none of my NEWS patches contain a changelog entry. Why?
Because it's not needed.
These are the kind of changes that don't deserve a ChangeLog,
i.e. adding ChangeLog entriess would make XEmacs LESS maintainable.
If the yes votes win, the likelihood that I will be contributing in
the future will drop significantly.
Oh come on Martin! If you have reasons to drop out, do so. But don't
pretend it to be because of ChangeLogs. :-(
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Manic depression is cool... your body can make its own drugs.