On Monday 13 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:41:18PM CEST: > > > But I think it's better to keep the content of the ChangeLog > > self-contained in this respect, if possible. > IMVHO it's better to do away with the ChangeLog completely. > But that's for another day. My point is that this practice > keeps the git log worse than it could be. Yes, but only by a small degree. > I'm really mostly interested in having a decent git log, since > with branching and all, the ChangeLog is only good for copyright > recording. That's so true, and will become more and more relevant if Automake will continue with the current (IMHO good) trend of using multiple persistent git branches. > > After all, if someone has access to the git repository, he can > > just look up what the parent commit of the bug-fixing commit > > is, and voila, he knows what the bug-introducing commit is. > This assumes that everyone follows this all the time, And that the bug-fixing policy is always followed, which won't always be the case (for one reason or another). You have a point. > that readers are aware of the policy, and that you never need to > refer to commits other than the previous one. Yes, your addition to HACKING definitely has merits. I'll strive to follow the new policy from now on.
Regards, Stefano
