Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 May 2002 16:20:05 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Changelogs on kernel.org |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>The 2.4.x changelogs seem to be done with my "release" scripts, but >additionally they don't have the same kind of detailed information that >the 2.5.x kernels have, and yes, the result is fairly ugly. > >What are peoples opinion about the "full" changelog format that v2.5.x >kernels have? Should we sort that too by author? >
Sorting might help a tiny bit...
I thought about this, when I saw the 2.4.x changelogs. Typical GNU projects seem to have a pretty decent system going -- there is a detailed ChangeLog, and an abbreviated high level summary NEWS, for each release.
So IMO a good solution would not be to change the format of the BK changelogs, but to supplement them with the type of summary that looks like the "old Linus" changelogs, i.e. a summary generated by a human:
Martin Dalecki - IDE updates Al Viro - VFS updates Andi Kleen - x86-64 update ...
The central complaint about BK changelogs seems to be that they are too verbose for a quick scan of what a new kernel version contains. (while at the same time lauding the additional information BK provides over the old changelogs)
Marcelo gave it a good shot, by (it appears) generating a summary by taking the first line of each cset. The better solution would be a human-generated NEWS file.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |