On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:49 PM, jean-frederic clere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >> Costin Manolache wrote: >>> >>> I never understood the use of the manual changelog - as opposed to svn >>>> log >>>> and good commit messages. >>>> Could we just use that ? >>>> >>>> that would be nice if we then could generate the 'changelog' to ship >>> with >>> the release. >>> for an admin that is about to upgrade, it's much nicer to have the >>> changelog to see what bugs got fixed, what changes were implemented, then >>> have to scan the SVN repository. >>> the changelog. the changelog is widely used by admins during upgrade >>> scenarios >>> >> >> >> Just include the bug number and links in the commit message. Whatever you >> put in the CHANGES you can put in the commit log as well. >> > > Well I don't agree because in several case a real fix only appears after > several commits a changelog entry will be a summary of those. > I agree, it's better to split large commits to make them easier to review. What about: in the last one commit in a series, add a CHANGELOG: whatever you would put in changelog. For small ones - don't. Then we can filter out the small ones. If you don't know when the bug is really fixed - make a dummy submit: "it looks like previous commit fixed it, CHANGELOG: ...." I don't know - it's not a big deal, I'm just used with the source-control automatically keeping track of the changes :-) Costin > > Cheers > > Jean-Frederic > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
