[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Git migration update

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

Reply to: