The change logs are for volunteers,
so that they can see a summary of functional changes and decide whether to
upgrade.
People who want to see commit notes can read them easily enough.
-- David
On 3/29/2017 1:04 AM, Oliver Bock wrote:
On 29/03/2017 9:40 , Vitalii Koshura wrote:
From my POV the the most hard part of this is to select important
commits only.
As long as you ignore merge commits, which is easy given their common
commit message prefix, EVERY commit is important. Changelogs are for
*various* user groups and thus should be complete (you won't know what's
"important"!). Sure, this all depends on having proper commits (atomic,
message prefixes) in the first place, but that's a different problem.
tl;dr: given our scarce resources changelogs should be created
automatically, as part of a proper release process. Proper commit
discipline is needed to facilitate that but it's easy to come by.
Disregarding commit discipline "in favor of" manual changelog harvesting
would be ridiculous.
Cheers,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
