From: Stuart B. <sd...@zu...> - 2013-05-28 16:47:38
|
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 07:14:38PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:29:48PM +0100, Stuart Brady wrote: > > > * Would we carry on using '$Id:' lines? > > I don't think they're useful. I'd be inclined to agree -- we should remove them from the source when we do the migration, or perhaps even beforehand. This probably means that when looking older versions of the source tree, you'll see just '$Id:', but I think we can live with that. > > * Should we keep the hacking/ChangeLog file? Part of the advantage > > of a DVCS is that we would have the full change history available > > locally, which rather obviates the need for the file. > > I also don't think it's necessary to have that file since all the > information is already in the repository. > > However, when you make a release it's interesting to have a ChangeLog > file in the tarball. That you can easily do with a rule like this: > > https://gitorious.org/vagalume/vagalume/blobs/master/Makefile.am#line103 > > So when you run 'make dist' to create the tarball the ChangeLog will > be automatically generated from the git history. Makes sense to me. We just have to remember that the shortlog can't be changed, so we need to be careful with commit messages. Maybe a period of patch submission before we're all used to the Git way of writing commit messages? Since the shortlog for older commits won't make a lot of sense, I'd suggest renaming the current ChangeLog to ChangeLog.old and generating the new changelog from commits after the transition to Git. I suppose we could always generate patches against the shortlog for any serious mixups. -- Cheers, Stuart |