Bruce Momjian writes:

> Seems there are two uses for the CHANGES file, one is to enable
> developers to see what has been added to the tree since they last
> looked, best solved with cvslog,

No, a cvslog is in nature different from a list of user-visible changes.
We're not talking about the core group of developers here that read the
committers list anyway, we're talking about people that only look once in
a while and want to check development progress, try out the latest
features, and avoid sending in patches for things that are already done.

> and second, to make it easier to
> package the final HISTORY changes, which is 100x easier to do in one
> shot from the cvs logs than piecemeal.

There is no piecemeal.  If it's all in one place you just copy it over.
It's impossible to beat that.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:43:11 -0500 (EST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Maintaining the list of release changes
On Friday 15 February 2002 08:43 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Seems there are two uses for the CHANGES file, one is to enable
> > developers to see what has been added to the tree since they last
> > looked, best solved with cvslog,

> No, a cvslog is in nature different from a list of user-visible changes.
> We're not talking about the core group of developers here that read the

It almost sounds like you want something like BitKeeper, which, barring its 
weird license, seems tobe just the ticker. But there's that weird license.....
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:36:45 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Maintaining the list of release changes