On 11-08-04 at 09:01am, David Bremner wrote: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:32:35 +0200, Alessandro Ghedini > <al3xbio@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Having worked with git for some time, I find that the first option > > (updating d/changelog at each commit) makes way harder to cherry > > pick, revert, bisect, and backport changes. Given that subversion > > misses many of the features that git has, this was not a problem in > > the svn days, but now I think it would ease the maintainance of the > > packages if everyone goes for option 2 and use git-dch(1) before > > releasing. > > I don't mind a policy of having changelog modifications in separate > commits (although I frankly rarely do fancy stuff with packaging > commits) but I would object pretty strenuously to mandating git-dch > (or any other tool) to write changelogs. Of course if people find it > convenient, then great. I think as a team we should be very cautious > about enlarging the set of tools needed to work with our packages. So > far, for people not doing mass commits, it is quite practical to use > git and a text editor. I hope it stays that way. I wholeheartedly agree. Personally I use "git dch -a; dch -r" and then adjust the file manually to make best sense for readers of the file (i.e. merge and regroup to list each _conceptual_ change rather than each _file_ changed or each _attempt_ to do a change). But I don't think we should mandate a specific way to do it for this team. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature