From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Torvald Riegel Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha Subject: Re: Update copyright dates not handled by scripts/update-copyrights [committed] Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 16:42:52 +0100 Message-ID: <1483371772.13143.93.camel@redhat.com> References: <0d577e78-86dc-5c4d-7afc-f4ff6e3a5eb9@redhat.com> <20170101095738.GH16617@vapier> <1483369707.13143.80.camel@redhat.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1483371791 3116 195.159.176.226 (2 Jan 2017 15:43:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Mike Frysinger , Florian Weimer , libc-alpha@sourceware.org To: Joseph Myers Original-X-From: libc-alpha-return-76522-glibc-alpha=m.gmane.org@sourceware.org Mon Jan 02 16:43:07 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: glibc-alpha@blaine.gmane.org DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=QAj7K7ovi/HUq8oC1azDTjE+8xUPPewoFZrt2iBr8uk 6GNgYLpgcQKu1A3nJArUbXusY2irYvJar3SRYb7wv8kS9vaAdq+k3nXMdYjgSkzE EJGoz9UKK/Z2v1D0vOrWPhyp1TyFePoeg203IgK+D7TZy3HLuYFWPg74c2LmHFsk = DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=u/RrccczqpB/oJ8lYrl/OoHAGKM=; b=L7Sepk+SC6bYV8x8m rq279KbyT6+HFxXt/xBDsyOntMq/QzGjNvqTygnPtfZJYYSIkjQT0OPJkxvPkAs2 5Gvn0hNuc4qqrHUehY1GCGEyXnieFVFw+ayFwTlTCOk+ZizwAyOfJIH/Fm6EIuJo /kczGPFYYso/4Tphn5Zr9lszmA= Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Original-Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha:68877 Archived-At: Received: from server1.sourceware.org ([209.132.180.131] helo=sourceware.org) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cO4lJ-00083D-OW for glibc-alpha@blaine.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2017 16:43:02 +0100 Received: (qmail 120443 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2017 15:43:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 120429 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jan 2017 15:43:00 -0000 On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 15:23 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > > On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 04:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > even better: let's delete them and be done. > > > > Yes, please. > > The old logs are routinely useful for identifying the logical changesets > for changes before the move to git. That's true. My hate for them was a little strong it seems ;) The old logs should not be removed. > The newer logs are a matter of the GNU Coding Standards. That is, if you > don't want to maintain information about "what" changed in that particular > form, you should be persuading the GCS maintainers to allow just logging > descriptions of what and why changed at the logical level rather than the > level of individual files and functions (in the case where a version > control system provides tracking of the "what" ... not all GNU packages > have public version control). Are you saying that from your point of view, GCS is the only significant reason for maintaining changelogs? In my opinion, the coding standards need to serve the projects. If we can find consensus in glibc that it does not give us a net win, then it doesn't serve us. One could still argue that it may serve users/developers that are not interacting with the glibc community directly (in which case they'd be told to just use git, please...); However, beyond grouping changes (ie, "logical change sets" as you write above), the changelogs aren't really useful IMO: they details vary a lot regarding "what", and "why is mostly not covered at all. Thus, developers outside of the glibc developer community would still have to consult libc-alpha or the git logs, so I see no significant benefit of the changelogs. > Absent such a GCS change, we can still move > to automatic generation but that requires various infrastructure work such > as I outlined. Yes, and just to be clear, I think something like what you outline would be a benefit over the existing situation. However, I'd much prefer for you (or/and everyone else) to not have to spend the effort on that infrastructure work and just get rid of changelogs. Maybe we should just announce that we'll stop doing changelogs and see whether anybody complains. If people complain, it would be interesting to see whether they can show that what they perceive as a loss when not having changelogs is larger than the win for the glibc developers (and thus all of glibc's users, indirectly).