Hi all,
I’m looking at ways to replace the current changelog generation routine for Git, and have a formatting question. It’s pretty easy to come up with something that’s close, but not identical, to the current format. My question is whether that is good enough, of if there’s some reason to stick with the old format as-is. The old format is:
2015-03-10 Lou Burnard
Adding the commit hash seems like a good idea, especially if it can be made into a link somehow. The detail in your third option is probably unnecessary.
You have my email address wrong though.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®|PRO
-------- Original message --------
From: Hugh Cayless
Date:09/09/2015 21:36 (GMT+00:00)
To: TEI Council
Subject: [tei-council] Changelog format
Hi all,
I’m looking at ways to replace the current changelog generation routine for Git, and have a formatting question. It’s pretty easy to come up with something that’s close, but not identical, to the current format. My question is whether that is good enough, of if there’s some reason to stick with the old format as-is. The old format is:
2015-03-10 Lou Burnard
While I don't think it is necessary, more information might be useful in some-as-yet-unimagined-scenario. If it doesn't cost us to have: " 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)" then putting it in might be useful. It might enable us to judge scope/depth of the changes or something. Dunno. Not really bothered to be honest. ;-) -James On 09/09/15 21:40, Lou Burnard wrote:
Adding the commit hash seems like a good idea, especially if it can be made into a link somehow. The detail in your third option is probably unnecessary.
You have my email address wrong though.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®|PRO
-------- Original message -------- From: Hugh Cayless Date:09/09/2015 21:36 (GMT+00:00) To: TEI Council Subject: [tei-council] Changelog format
Hi all,
I’m looking at ways to replace the current changelog generation routine for Git, and have a formatting question. It’s pretty easy to come up with something that’s close, but not identical, to the current format. My question is whether that is good enough, of if there’s some reason to stick with the old format as-is. The old format is:
2015-03-10 Lou Burnard
Changed paths: M /trunk/P5/Source/Guidelines/en/DS-DefaultTextStructure.xml M /trunk/P5/Source/Guidelines/en/USE.xml M /trunk/P5/Source/Specs/TEI.xml clarify structure of TEI element per bug #742
And it would be replaced by:
2015-03-10 Lou Burnard
9fc47c4 clarify structure of TEI element per bug #742
M P5/Source/Guidelines/en/DS-DefaultTextStructure.xml M P5/Source/Guidelines/en/USE.xml M P5/Source/Specs/TEI.xml
The short-form commit hash above is an optional extra. We didn’t include svn rev numbers before. Another simple alternative is:
2015-03-10 Lou Burnard
9fc47c4 clarify structure of TEI element per bug #742
P5/Source/Guidelines/en/DS-DefaultTextStructure.xml | 6 ++++-- P5/Source/Guidelines/en/USE.xml | 6 +++++- P5/Source/Specs/TEI.xml | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Which gives more detail about the nature of the changes. Thoughts?
-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford
No opinion other than we should have the commit hash.
participants (4)
-
Hugh Cayless
-
James Cummings
-
Lou Burnard
-
Syd Bauman