Re: merging etc

[joakim]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     But I think even CVS would be able to create changelogs directly from
>     the commits the way Emacs maintainers wants it, so I dont see what
>     switching to git would change in this regard. Its more of a cultural
>     issue. (git would of course bring us many other benefits)
>
> The CVS change logs are insufficient because they do not list the
> authors' names.  They list who checked in the change.
>
> So that simply is not an option.

That could surely be fixed by adding meta data to the commit. But I'm
not going to argue this point.

Instead I would like ask if its possible to do the merge like this:

- people knowledgeable how to perform the merge with the given tool
  contraints do so now, merging mtty to head.

- In the changelog there will be a placeholder:
-------
Merge performed from mtty branch: TODO insert crunched mtty changelog
here.
-------

- somewhere in the Emacs tree there will be a mtty changelog.

- The mtty changelog is crunched piece by piece, and inserted into the
  main changelog incrementaly. The corresponding passage in the mtty
  changelog is removed to keep track of progress.


I would like to do it this way so several people can work together on
the crunching, and so the merging wont be delayed so people can start
find actual functional problems. Furthermore I dont feel very
comfortable with cvs, and this way feels less likely to mess up.

-- 
Joakim Verona