Changelog Format

Richard A Downing richard at
Wed Aug 17 14:05:41 PDT 2005

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> I prefer a straight forward chronological list of changes without all
>> the sections: Upgraded", "Added" and "Removed".
> Proposals generally are better received when they contain rationale (and
> no, "I prefer" doesn't count!) :)

It should do. I'm a reader of the book.  Don't you want to please your
readers?  ;-)  Otherwise why are you writing it?  I bet I've read it
cover-to-cover more often than almost anyone else on the list today too.

> Seriously though, I think it provides a nice clear one-stop-shop
> overview of the major changes to the book for our audience.
> Additionally, with the changes that Archaic and Jim made to the XML,
> it's much easier to keep up to date too.
> As I am writing this, Tush's email just came through.  Maybe moving this
> information to a "What's New" page would be useful, leaving the far too
> inquisitive reader to peruse the more detailed changelog if they so
> desire.  As it's all related to changes made to the book though, I
> personally think they should remain together.  Obviously it'd be much
> easier to convince me if you both provided reasons *why* you don't like
> the current format.

I check out and render the LFS trunk (and Cross-LFS, BLFS, GCC4 )every
day - sometime more often.  Then I read the changlog to find what has
been changed.  I am uninterested in what versions are current. I am only
interested in what has changed and why.  So I would like this
information in front of the status information (I call it that 'cos it
the status of the differences between this SVN pull and the last
published version - If you see what I mean - rather than the change from
the last pull ).

It's not a big thing, but I was surprised to find that I wasn't alone
thinking this - hence the request.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list