Re: git history tracking across renames (and emacs support)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:33:32 -0800
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> It's perfectly OK for someone to decide to hack on Emacs starting from
> >> a tarball rather than from a Git tree, but then this user gets what he
> >> asked for.
> > Since I'm frequently in that situation,
> 
> How so? I'm almost never in that situation.

To each one their own.  Not everyone spends his/her office hours in
academic environments.

> Do you download distribution tarballs and hack on them directly? If not, how 
> do 
> you end up with development copies of Emacs without having a repository near 
> to 
> hand?

For some value of "near", I do.  But that's not near enough to make
consulting the repository a practical part of my workflow in those
cases.

> > keeping the ChangeLog files
> > nowadays means a barely tangible effort from the project.
> 
> We're not talking about removing the existing ChangeLog files. We're talking 
> about what should be put into commit messages from here on out.

As long as ChangeLog is generated from Git log, we _are_ talking about
ChangeLog as well.

> That is an ongoing and nontrivial maintenance effort

You are exaggerating.