On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:17:59PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > I believe that whatever we do, somebody will still have to read the full log
> > and check each entry in CHANGES to avoid listing a lot of trivial stuff,
> > and to make sure the most impactful changes appear at the top.
>
> I don't think so. Not if the changelog annotations are used well (as
> with writing log message in general, this probably requires practice
> to get right -- it'd be a part of reviewing each other's changes to
> potentially give feedback on the (optional) changelog annotation).
>
> The intention is that the RM doesn't need to go through all the full
> log messages in detail, but that he can trust the output of
> write-changelog, combined with trust in the quality of the log
> messages involved.
OK, in that light it all makes sense and I agree this is worth a try.
And if we don't manage to pull it off well enough, nothing is lost
compared to the status quo.
Thanks for driving this forward!
Received on 2017-12-04 14:28:54 CET