From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O1rho-0003Yb-4A for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:47:52 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B7E36E0921; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:47:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FC8E090F for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.5] (pool-96-245-231-248.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [96.245.231.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE221B4037 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:47:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BC51EA7.1080108@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:47:19 -0400 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100306 Thunderbird/3.0.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [git migration] The problem of ChangeLog generation References: <1271157930.11850.977.camel@tablet> <19396.28532.913516.120152@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4BC497F0.9080606@gentoo.org> <4BC49CD5.3090208@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4BC49CD5.3090208@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a22f10ab-d741-4b2e-b509-361b284297a0 X-Archives-Hash: c057741ccb57098d3a4c417b252d2d83 On 04/13/2010 12:33 PM, Matti Bickel wrote: > Alec Warner wrote: >> Its not possible in perforce once your change has been submitted. > > Oh, missed that one. Maybe that makes perforce more "auditble" or whatnot. I suspect that is the gist of it. I work with numerous systems that have audit trails that are subject to regulation, and it is pretty typical that the way to "correct" an audit trail entry is to add an additional audit trail entry (with the old entry still being there - perhaps with a pointer to the new entry). There is no shame in admitting that you made a mistake - the kinds of people who audit these systems look at a lack of mistakes as evidence that something is being hidden. Rich