Re: changelog format

[Stefano Lattarini]

Hi Thien, thanks for not giving up on this.  Just a couple of minor
observations ...

On 04/28/2012 02:13 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> () address@hidden (Alfred M. Szmidt)
> () Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:44:05 -0500
> 
>       - There's no need to describe the full purpose of the
>       [...]
>       - function definition to explain what it does.
> 
>    Why is this section removed?
> 
> Because it mixes concepts and style (the "however, sometimes
> ... batch of changes"), and because the advice on writing comments
> is no longer fully applicable (to non-software files, mentioned
> first in the following paragraph).  Such advice is now an
> "implementation detail", dependent on the kind of change to be
> logged.
> 
>       + Each group of related entries should have a @dfn{title}, a
>       + one line description or summary of the change, and
>       + optionally a short paragraph to:
> 
>    I find the wording confusing here, and don't really understand
>    what is optional, or mandatory.
> 
> OK.
> 
>    Making the description line (title is confusing)
> 
> To me, "title" suggests succinctness and overall applicability,
> and is itself succinct.  What would you suggest instead?
>
"Summary" perhaps?

>    mandatory is bad.  Many changes don't require it.
> 
> I'm ambivalent, but only because i still use RCS, for which it
> does seem overkill to require TITLE (though, i have developed a
> habit of including one, anyway).
>
And tomorrow you might convert your RCS repository to git, in which
case you'll indeed be grateful to this habit of yours ;-)

Thanks,
  Stefano