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

[Chris Johns]

Ralf Corsepius 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.

Really. Do you keep "paper" copies of all diffs and reference them ? I 
doubt it.

I find it funny you now argue the VCS is irrelevant yet you battled the 
change to git like it was also the end of the world. The only real 
pattern repeating here is your behavior.

>
>> 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.

You only fooling yourself with statements like this.

>
>> 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.

The diff in the VCS is the only accurate definition. The time stamp on 
the diff is the only valid time stamp. The check in author is wrong on a 
number of cases, how-ever the check comments hint at the originator.

>
>>>
>>> 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.

There is none, never is and never will be. RTEMS is free and open.

>
> 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.
>

This statement is irrelevant to the discussion. If _you_ truly believe 
this statement then the "you" includes you and that contradiction is 
something you will need to consider.

Chris