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

Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsepius at
Fri Mar 8 22:41:44 UTC 2013

On 03/07/2013 01:43 AM, Peter Dufault wrote:
> I'm baffled by this conversation, so help me out.

I am baffled by Joel's and Gedare's rudities.

>   I respect Ralf.  His sand-paper presentations on the list have pissed me off more than once,
Thanks, but ... my feelings on RTEMS currently are not positive. I feel 
the RTEMS project has developed from a serious project into a kids' circus.

>   but I also know I've agreed with him when his rough presentation wasn't convincing anyone else.  So -
> 1. The Changelogs we're discussing are currently under git control, and so the current state can be retrieved in a provably, traceable manner in the future, though they disappear from view for the casual viewer.
> 2. The Changelogs aren't currently and sometimes haven't been updated.
The ChangeLogs have been abandoned since the introduction of git, 
because some people around here believe git has obsoleted the need for 
These people are wrong - Whether ChangeLogs are considered to be useful 
is a matter of conventions and is independent of VCS.

>    I think this is because the overlap between adding an entry to a Changelog and also describing changes during a version control system commit is redundant, and so the Changelogs have suffered.
> 3. Any version control system that RTEMS switches to in the future will be at least as information-preserving as the switch to git,
The switch to git was not complete - Information was lost.

> 5. Changelogs provide a convenient form of release summary, but this can be provided by somebody who knows "git" well writing "changelog" script.
> Which of the above statements are wrong?  Ralf, what kind of legal traceability is provided by visible and updated Changelogs beyond what is present and will be preserved in a conversion to yet another version control system?
Again, the fact any VCS is in use, is completely without important, when 
it comes to releases (tarballs).

But provided the attitude I am currently experiencing here, we will 
never see any release, because "the sources are in git".

> I think you should clarify your concerns, because I'm not sure they are addressed by an infrequently updated "Changelog".
Correct. ChangeLogs need to be updated "in time". That's what most 
serious projects do (e.g. GCC, binutils, gdb, newlib).

>    Then the entries required to address those concerns need to go into a git controlled document that is carefully reviewed at release snapshots.  I don't think the right name for that document would be "Changelog".

Thanks to the fact the trigger has now pulled, any further discussion 
has become moot.

*I consider this step to be a serious mistake and to be a serious 
management mistake *

Therefore, my final last words on this matter:
* IMO, any project which wants to be taken seriously need to provide 
accurate ChangeLogs. Projects, which don't, can't be taken serious.
* IMO, persons who claim ChangeLogs are not necessary and are covered by 
VCSes, are trying to hide away their personal lazyness and sloppiness.


More information about the devel mailing list