ChangeLog (was Re: bug with named pipes and process substitution)

[Kamil Dudka <kdudka@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 22 July 2015 18:46:18 Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Jul 23,  3:03am, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> }
> } > "git stash"-ing all my changes to re-apply after sourceforge is back.
> }
> } Why would you do that rather than just committing them?
> 
> Because (a) I spent the last six days thinking "gee, they've got to be
> back on line any minute now" and (b) I prefer to "git pull" and then
> edit the ChangeLog to reduce the chances of a conflict on ChangeLog,
> because (c) even with --rebase I find the way git handles overlapping
> diffs in a file that grows at the top to be really annoying and (d) I
> want the ChangeLog entry to be the same commit as the rest of the diff.

Do the ChangeLog entries actually capture anything that commit messages
can not?  Would not it be better to just generate ChangeLog from git log?

Unlike ChangeLog as a text file, a conflict on commit messages can never 
happen.

Kamil