Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> With that definition it literally is just the git log though isn't it

I think you're right if you go by that definition ("changelog is a raw, engineering driven manifest of everything that has changed"), but there I think there is an intermediate step between git log and the user-facing release notes, whether or not it's formalized, which is to basically squash the messages into the list of effective changes since another point-in-time (eg: last release).

Let's say you add a feature, then refactor it a bit, then fix a bug in that new code. The only thing that needs to be there is the "Added a feature" part, because the rest is meaningless noise when you compare it to the prior release.

Likewise, if you add then revert something, both can be removed.

Or if you bump a dependency to version 2.0.5, then a couple days later go to 2.0.6, you don't need to mention the 2.0.5 one at all.

For me personally, this is just part of the process of how I go from git history and PRs to actual user-facing release notes (that have "why", context, and are sorted by added vs fixed, and have callouts of deprecations or breaking changes). But there's a case for it being its own output, or even the only output.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: