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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 12:00:18 EST