Huh. Well, considering that the GNU Coding Guidelines specifically
recommend this technique as an alternative to maintaining an actual
file,
I don't think it's exactly "recommended"; it's mentioned as an
alternative, but in a rather ambiguous way (at least if we're talking
about the same thing, in the Change Log Concepts node of standards.texi):
Another alternative is to record change log information with a
version control system such as RCS or CVS. This can be converted
automatically to a `ChangeLog' file using `rcs2log'; ....
Personally, as is somewhat implied here, I think it is highly desirable
for there to be actual ChangeLog files in distributions, at least,
independent of whether they are created from the vc logs. So I'm glad
Jim is still doing that.
For background: I believe that rms relies on ChangeLog files in his
distributions for legal information. That's why the whole "(tiny
change)" stuff exists, why the rules for who is given as the author are
spelled out so precisely (Style of Change Logs), etc. In the vc logs,
the person who commits the change might not be the person who wrote the
change. What matters legally is who wrote it.
