Re: ChangeLog renaming...

[Mark Galassi <rosalia at lanl dot gov>]

    Karl> Dr. Data Duplication says:

    Karl> Don't keep ChangeLogs -- generate them on the fly with
    Karl> cvs2cl.pl,

It should be the other way around.  There are many reasons for that,
and the GNU coding standards are clear on the subject.

Among the reasons:

1. The tools for creating ChangeLog entries are better.

2. ChangeLog entries have a logic prescribed for them by the GNU
   coding standards.  This logic is that they should be useful as part
   of a release tarball.  CVS entries have a different raison-d'etre:
   that they should be useful when comparing revisions.  They are not
   meant to be part of a release.

3. Pasting GNU-prescribed ChangeLog entries into the CVS message
   (which can also be done automatically) will always satisfy CVS
   needs, but the reverse is not true.  On top of that, it is easier!
   If you use pcl-cvs mode, it's automatic.  If not, you can cut/paste
   or do one-liners in the shell.  The threshold is much lower for
   someone doing a quickie.

4. Many GNU hackers (like me when I live in Italy) have expensive CVS
   access, so they keep it short and sweet: they connect, do "cvs
   update", and disconnect.  ChangeLog files are great because you
   can just look at the new file!

5. (This is my experience only) I have seen people promise to generate
   ChangeLog files automatically in many projects, but it has never
   actually happened in the projects I follow.  On the other hand, all
   the projects I follow have people pasting ChangeLog entries into
   CVS quite successfuly.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but #3 alone should be enough.