Delete ChangeLog files Was :Re: ChangeLog change to .ChangeLog

[Gedare Bloom]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius at rtems.org> wrote:
> On 03/06/2013 06:44 PM, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
>>
>> Ralf,
>>
>> Am 06.03.2013 18:34, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
>>>
>>> On 03/06/2013 04:20 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the ChangeLog entry text is by and large replicated already in the
>>>> git log, then I see no reason to keep the files hanging around
>>>> bit-rotting.
>>>
>>> Again, ... the git-logs are a temporary internal implementation detail,
>>> the ChangeLog files are legal documents.
>>
>>
>> Can you elaborate this more clearly?
>
> Whatever data is stored in whatever VCS is being used at a certain point in
> time is completely irrelevant.
>
The VCS stores timestamps, authorship info, and changes much better
than we ever could with manual ChangeLog entries.

>
>> I can't see any legal character in
>> the changelogs or any RTEMS project files (except the copyright headers
>> and License statements). Nobody sells RTEMS,
>
> Again, simply accept that ChangeLogs are documents and are legally relevant.
>
I don't know about their legal relevance, but I don't see why the VCS
metadata is any different.

>
>> nobody assures the features
>> of RTEMS based on the Changelogs or the git logs. So what exactly do you
>> mean the "legal"?
>
> Time stamps, authorship, copyrights etc.
>
>
>>>
>>> Git is like your employer carrying your working contract's data in their
>>> internal database - The only document that counts is the version you
>>> have printed.
>>
>>
>> Right. But there is no RTEMS contract.
>
> There is a product called RTEMS. The ChangeLogs are part of its legally
> relevant documentation.
>
> Just wait 10 years, when  "Gready business" sues you, because they got to
> know that your business has sold an RTEMS-based application/product in 2006,
> which as they claim, contains code which as they claim _you stole_ from
> their works.
>
> You'll soon be greatful, to find publically released ChangeLogs as part of
> sources/tarballs, clearly documenting timeslines, changes, authorship etc.
>
This is fear mongering, if anyone is concerned about such a contrived
risk, they can pull the relevant history from our VCS.

This argument about the legal need to have ChangeLogs is warrantless.
There also does not seem to be any technical reason to continue to
have the ChangeLogs around when the same info can be pulled from the
git log for the historical commits.

> Ralf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel