Re: [PATCH 2/3] maint: rename `libltdl/m4' directory to standard `m4'.

[Stefano Lattarini]

Hi Gary.

On Wednesday 02 November 2011, Gary V wrote:
> 
> >> package_revision=`$SHELL $ac_aux_dir/git-version-gen .tarball-version`
> >> diff --git a/libltdl/.gitignore b/libltdl/.gitignore
> >> index 2f39096..5795dbc 100644
> >> --- a/libltdl/.gitignore
> >> +++ b/libltdl/.gitignore
> >> @@ -2,5 +2,4 @@
> >> /Makefile.am
> >> /argz.h
> >> /build-aux
> >> +/m4
> >> -/dummy.c
> >> -/gnulib.mk
> >> 
> > Shouldn't these last two edits be done in a separate patch?
> 
> No, because I don't want to introduce broken revisions that cannot build
> into git history.
>
I think there's a misunderstanding here.  What I meant is: since (as far
as I can see) dummy.c and gnulib.mk are not touched/moved by this patch,
shouldn't any edit to `.gitignore' that involves them better be done in
a separate patch?  Or am I missing something?

> >  Also,
> > shouldn't you report the changes to file `libltdl/.gitignore' in
> > the ChangeLog entry?
> 
> That's interesting actually.  Historically, we have only reported changes
> to distributed files in ChangeLog, and have always omitted at least VCS
> control files from the log entries.  I'm still leaning slightly towards not
> introducing ChangeLog noise to describe things that are only important
> when you have the full git checkout available, and hence access to git log
> and friends if you want to dig this sort of information out -- BUT I could
> easily be persuaded to change my mind if you have a good argument for the
> advantage of putting this stuff into the git log entry, which would then
> eventually be put into the generated ChangeLog file...
> 
I have no strong opinion on the matter (even if I personally prefer, when
writing a ChangeLog entry, to mention any non-generated, version-controlled
file that gets modified, whther distributed or not).  I just wanted to make
sure the lack of `.gitignore' mention in the ChangeLog wasn't the result of
an overlloking.

Regards,
  Stefano