Rant about ChangeLog entries and commit messages

[NightStrike]

On 12/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Dec  3, 2007, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>
> > In my view, ChangeLog is mostly "write-only" from a developer's
> > perspective.  It's a document that the GNU project requires us to produce
> > for
>
> ... a good example of compliance with the GPL:
>
>  5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
>
>    a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
>    it, and giving a relevant date.
>
>
> FWIW, I've used ChangeLogs to find problems a number of times in my 14
> years of work in GCC, and I find them very useful.  When I need more
> details, web-searching for the author of the patch and some relevant
> keywords in the ChangeLog will often point at the relevant e-mail, so
> burdening people with adding a direct URL seems pointless to me.  It's
> pessimizing the common case for a small optimization in far less
> common cases.

Maybe Changelogs should be reserved for important changes.  For
instance, something like "Fixed a typo" is a complete waste.  I doubt
anyone looks ta a Changelog to see if someone fixed a typo recently or
at any point in the past.  Perhaps there could be some criteria so
that not every single iota gets a log entry.