On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 14:53 -0400, James Laska wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 14:00 -0400, John Dulaney wrote:
> The other thing I'm considering is how to automate ChangeLog creation.
> Maybe add the
> script to the server and include running it in the merge to master
> process? The issue
> becomes how to include the ChangeLog in the Git repository, but make
> it so that the Git
> log doesn't wind up getting ChangeLog modified type messages. Maybe
> just not git add
> the file in the master? But then, how to keep the ChangeLog when
> master is cloned?
I'm partial to the idea used by some GNOME teams
(
http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog) to link the ChangeLog generation
into the Makefile.
There's another example of a sample script used to convert git logs to
ChangeLog at
http://blog.cryos.net/archives/202-Git-and-Automatic-ChangeLog-Generation.... It'd
be nice to not required another "script" but to generate the content using the
appropriate git-log arguments (if possible). An example that generates something close to
your example is ...
# git log --date=short --no-merges --pretty="%an <%ae> %ad%n%n% s%n%+b"
v0.5.0-0.2.pre..origin
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to recommend
we do this properly, and not cram it in at the last minute. By properly
I mean figure out what we're trying to accomplish here. Creating a
script/Makefile to generate a ChangeLog shouldn't be hard ... but do we
really need one?
Unless there are no objections, I propose we figure out the most
sustainable ChangeLog approach post-release. I don't think this should
stand in the way of getting 0.5.0 out the door.
Thanks,
James