Re: Status update - version 5.2.2, cvs->git conversion, plans

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

On 11/16/2017 12:28 PM, Dima Kogan wrote:
> Daniel J Sebald <dan...@ie...> writes:
> 
>> On 11/16/2017 12:17 AM, sfeam via gnuplot-beta wrote:
>>
>> Keep the same format for the git log messages as you've been using for
>> the ChangeLog, i.e.,
>>
>> -> One line of "short-log"
>> -> List of files that have changed, just like CVS ChangeLog entries
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> 1) Ask the people submitting patches, via their git tools to include the
>> file change info in their log messages
> 
> Please, let's not do that. Version control already has this information,
> and asking humans to replicate it is both effortfull and error-prone.
> Does 'git log --stat' give you what you want?

It doesn't.  Stat tells you what files have changed, but it doesn't 
indicate why.  As an example, here is what is done for Octave:

http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/f8c263f961c1

Are the main developers going to maintain the ChangeLog-like formatted 
messages?  (It's up to them, does it help in tracking down where a code 
change may have happened?  Apparently, as they've been doing just that 
for quite some time.)  If so, why not ask the contributor to do that 
work rather than the main developers?

And the benefit of asking the contributor to do a more detailed log 
message is that I believe it makes the code less error-prone, not more. 
Why?  Because when it comes time to create a commit and I have to write 
a slightly more detailed log message I'm forced to review my code diffs 
to describe it, and very often I realize there is a slightly better 
syntax or there is a comment or debugging line I forgot to remove. 
Describing/reviewing one's code is like using proof-reading or 
spell-checking.

Dan