On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 09:18:06AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 14/01/12 08:51, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 07:44:31PM +0100, Seblu wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Lukas Fleischer > >> <archlinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:49:39AM -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote: > >>> I'm all for writing useful (and detailed, if necessary) commit messages > >>> instead of writing ChangeLog entries. We use a VCS for some reason. > >>> Using proper commit messages makes changes damn easy to follow without > >>> having to maintain these inconvenient ChangeLog files. > >> It's more easy to read a human changelog, (shipped with packages which > >> don't needs to connect to archlinux.org), than developer oriented > >> commits. > > > > I don't really see any big difference here. Commit messages should be > > detailed and comprehensible as well. I'm not sure what you mean by > > "developer oriented" but if your commit messages cannot be understood by > > any user, you're probably doing something wrong :) > > > > Check [1] for an example of how a commit message should look like. > > While I agree that a good commit message should be used, that is a side > point to the original email. > > What was being asked was that if someone chooses to maintain a ChangeLog > for their package, then you should also update the ChangeLog file if you > make an update to that package. Agreed, and I'm also for keeping the maintainer's PKGBUILD formatting if you update a package (unless it breaks something, of course). Sorry for being slightly off-topic and turning this into a "ChangeLog vs. commit log" discussion. > > Allan
