Commit messages

[Thomas Doerfler]

Gedare,

Am 21.02.2012 21:06, schrieb Gedare Bloom:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius
> <ralf.corsepius at rtems.org> wrote:
>>
>> Well, does git have something comparable? CVS's $Id$'s are helpful when
>> people are referring to files from tarballs, e.g. in bug reports.
>>
>>
> Unless I'm mistaken the "official" tarballs are just the release
> versions right? So I don't see a need to have any redundant versioning
> information. Maybe I missed something.

we are not only talking about the official RTEMS release tarballs. In a
dedicated project, the "OS" guy may pack a project specific tarball. In
that case, the "ID" information may be useful to track problems.

>>>
>>> The current location of ChangeLog files seems quite artifical to me.
>>
>> It isn't artificial.
>>
>> Each of these ChangeLogs corresponds to a _subpackage_, which can be
>> relocated to a different location with fairly small amounts of works.
>>
>>
>>> Ralf's explanation, that they are at the same nodes as the configure.ac
>>> seems artifical to me either.
>>
>>
>> Again, no. Each configure.ac makes them a _subpackage_ auto*tool-wise.
>>
>> Think about BSPs. Your users will really want a per-BSP ChangeLog and not a
>> monolytic toplevel ChangeLog containing all changes of everything.
>>
> I think it is a nice idea to consider more arguments than
> autotool-dependent subpackages: what if autotools goes away, then what
> is the reasoning behind our placement of ChangeLogs? Do we really need
> ChangeLogs in (just to pick one) ./doc/tools/bmenu/?

Full ACK.

Thomas.

-- 
--------------------------------------------
Embedded Brains GmbH
Thomas Doerfler           Obere Lagerstr. 30
D-82178 Puchheim          Germany
email: Thomas.Doerfler at embedded-brains.de
Phone: +49-89-18908079-2
Fax:   +49-89-18908079-9