From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/27031 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jan Vroonhof Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: *** empty log message *** is a no-no Date: 17 Nov 1999 21:47:11 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: Original-Received: from bart.math.uh.edu (bart.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.48]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA20534 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:48:16 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by bart.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAB05793; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:48:08 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:47:57 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08670 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:47:46 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (daemon@frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA20518 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:47:17 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from daemon@localhost) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA06745 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:47:15 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from bolzano(129.132.146.140) via SMTP by frege, id smtpdAAAa001dF; Wed Nov 17 21:47:12 1999 Original-Received: (vroonhof@localhost) by bolzano (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id VAA12044; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:47:12 +0100 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Denys Duchier's message of "Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:07:38 GMT" Original-Lines: 44 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070083 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.83) XEmacs/21.1 (Acadia) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:27031 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:27031 Denys Duchier writes: > > No they are very useful for concurrent development. > > useful, but not appropriate. what ultimately matters is the record of > committed changes. I don't quite understand what you mean here. If you commit the new ChangeLog entries with the changes they refer to the ChangeLogs also only record commited changes? > written, tools to be maintained, databases to be updated, etc... I > don't know if my case is atypical; maybe you're right. I think it is more the other way around. It is Gnus (or in my case XEmacs) that are atypical. > well, not in my experience, but I guess your mileage may vary. My > main beef with this is that empty log messages just don't help me any. > And saying "see ChangeLog file" also does not help (see what?). I > want `C-x v l' to give me an informative log history of the file. Indeed. I was never arguing for that. In fact I think making sure the log messages get populated from ChangeLogs is a very good idea. XEmacs currently has CVS logs of the style "Martin's patch" or "Some patches for 21.1.19" which is highly annoying. I am just arguing that currently CVS logs cannot ChangeLogs replace ChangeLogs, because the 1. The ChangeLogs have a logical grouping and this is more or less enforced. The changes explicitly name the functional unit involved. 2. ChangeLogs can be distributed easily with the tarballs. What I would really want is a better VC system than CVS. > However, not being a gnus developer myself, my opinion is hardly the > one that really matters here. I think input about issues, coming from experience, is just good a contribution as coding. Jan