Re: Using VC for change descriptions

[Joseph Myers]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017, Richard Stallman wrote:

>   > It is also clear in practice that there are certain kinds of changes for 
>   > which the ChangeLog format is poorly suited, because those changes cannot 
>   > readily be described or understood in terms of separate descriptions of 
>   > what they do to each individual named entity affected, or because 
>   > describing in those terms results in a very long description that is 
>   > excessively duplicative of the diffs themselves (which can be seen in the 
>   > VCS history).
> 
> That is a very abstract description.  I can't be sure what cases you
> have in mind, let alone be sure that I agree with the conclusion
> about those cases.
> 
> Would you like to present a real or imaginary example?
> >From that, I could tell whether I agree with this conclusion:

I gave an example in 
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2017-07/msg00002.html> 
(bug-standards, Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:47:19 +0000), both of a ChangeLog 
entry and of the corresponding logical description (summary line plus two 
descriptive paragraphs) that actually explains what changed at a more 
human-comprehensible level.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
address@hidden