Re: Experiment to provide a mirror of bash with detailed git history

[Mike Frysinger]

On 21 Mar 2015 20:19, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 3/16/15 4:54 PM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> > I know that some people are interested in a more detailed commit history in
> > bash's git repository. After all, it's easier for all of us to just learn to
> > use a tool, and use that for everything.
> > 
> > The changelog files distributed with bash are useful, *but*, I claim that 
> > it'd
> > be more useful to use the facilities that git provides for this. Because, it
> > already has many useful things, like bisect, blame, log, and so on, that 
> > only
> > work properly if you follow the good practice of making "logical commits".
> 
> I'm interested in how well this turns out.  I'm also interested in how
> useful you find the changelog entries, since I try to make them very
> detailed.

i love very detailed changelogs, but their up-front usefulness is curtailed 
when 
they can't be clearly attributed to file changes.  this is why the idiom of one 
logical change per git commit works out nicely -- when there's a problem, 
you've got specific commits & their reasons, and you can use git bisect to help 
automate tracking down regressions.
-mike

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature