Re: Changelogs, really useful?

[Richard Riley]

Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:

> 2010/8/6 Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com>:
>> Deniz Dogan <deniz.a.m.dogan@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> 2010/8/6 Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>:
>>>> It's not really a question about emacs maybe (even if we can automate
>>>> things) but more general about programming...
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if it's still so useful to write detailed Changelogs.
>>>> I mean all the software is under revision control, and doing small
>>>> commits often I write a commit message for only one function, which
>>>> would be exactly what I add in the changelog.
>>>>
>>>> I don't like to write things twice, and also history in the control
>>>> revision system is much more detailed, does it really make sense to add
>>>> changelogs?
>>>>
>>>> I think that only the changes that involve the architecture or how to
>>>> use the software should be really important, but the default style on
>>>> emacs is quite detailed.
>>>>
>>>> How do you manage?
>>>> Write twice? Write only in the changelog/scm? Other?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect it's nice to have a changelog as a file just to be able to
>>> put it online or wherever people would find it useful. Not everyone
>>> enjoys or knows how to see the bzr log.
>>>
>>> Also, consider that the changelog file was introduced before bzr,
>>> which meant that without it people would have to look in a CVS log.
>>> (Those poor people!)
>>
>> Generate the changelog from the VCS in use when you Make the program.
>>
>
> Sometimes the changelog isn't the same as the commit message. The
> changelog can be more vague in its description of what was changed
> whereas the commit message may include many details.


Sure. I was just throwing it out there as a possibility in the
discussion. It's quite common in git circles to do just that and people
commit msg accordingly.