From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,254d058bd7de11b3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:17:49 -0600 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <87y8f96imj.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <87wtus3do0.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Subject: Re: Writing changelog entries Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:19:26 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-T3VZMfn9O3g3AVb/LtoRIF5h/m5N2uOEDD9iJNCyRZq2tGyi/WGpxkuHseBlj7jEltCmqI1N3vrutvp!rPKrQzsdvMGQ+UpXWAAcMhUcJSKEFZDBWZWsny2bqn5qJfyiSTTV5LK0fs/yrgcA+4pgV6zQ6MlN X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.22 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7528 Date: 2005-01-06T14:19:26-06:00 List-Id: "Florian Weimer" wrote in message news:87wtus3do0.fsf@deneb.enyo.de... > Generating the changelog is not the problem. It's the format of the > entries in it. Many projects have explicit guidelines which ensure > that you can grep the changelog and find the change which affected a > particular entity. However, these guidelines are C-specific and do > not take homographs into account (and neither nested subprograms, and > so on). My personal opinion is that that is not worth it. Changes should have been at least minimally tested before being checked it, and if they cause a regression test to fail, they should be fixed immediately while the programmer still remembers what he did. (They then won't need to work back through the system.) That leaves the rare cases where a problem shows up much later. In those cases, it's usually necessary to debug the entire thing again anyway. So, leaving comments in the place where the code is the most valuable, because it's where you're going to be looking anyway. If it takes two extra minutes (probably conservative) to create structured changelogs, you'd have to save more than 4 hours of development time to come out ahead on the 1 out of 100 (probably pessimistic) changes that you have go back and debug in the future. While that's possible, it seems unlikely. Just having the CM (with no changelog at all) seems to save most of the time; I do try to put the bug report number into the code and/or edit history (presuming it is formally tracked; we only do that for outside bug reports, because of the time investment), which helps find the change again if needed. Randy.