Re: A walkthrough of some of the challenges with auto generated changelogs

[Daniel Turull <daniel.turull@ericsson.com>]

On Fri, 2026-09-04 at 18:07 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-09-03 at 07:55 +0000, Daniel Turull wrote:
> > Thanks for the input.
> > 
> > On Wed, 2026-09-02 at 12:47 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > Everyone keeps telling me how great these auto generated change logs
> > > are and yes, they can be helpful but they are also piling pressure on
> > > me as everyone has their own preferences and personal "triggers" for
> > > issues. I keep getting told how XXX shouldn't have merged without YYY
> > > being tweaked but the tweaks/triggers vary per person. I also get told
> > > a changelog is better than none and that we shouldn't be spending time
> > > on it. I can't win.
> > 
> > Maybe I should write a proposal on what to include in the commit messages
> > regarding the changelog changes?
> > 
> > My opinion is also the latter. A changelog is better than none and that we
> > shouldn't be spending time on it. There is always the original changelog if
> > people is interested in all changes.
> > 
> > The original intent was for the stable releases, where is more important to
> > know
> > what has changed.
> 
> Agreed, it definitely is useful but I did want to make sure people
> could see the other side of this too. None of this was meant as
> critisism, more just open feedback on how it 'feels' having used it for
> a while. Some of the implications are not quite what I'd foreseen.
> 

No worries. I took it at as open feedback, not criticism.

Cheers,
Daniel
> >