> Just copying the commit descriptions into a doc, even in a nicer format, feels like theatre to me. You aren't gaining anything. Non-technical users won't benefit from it and everyone else can learn 'git log'.
I disagree. As a technical user who consumes many external repositories, I much prefer reading a changelog to reading a list of commits. First, I'm not reading this in a git client; I'm reading it in a web browser (likely on Github). In this interface, being able to see via headings the changes since my current version and the new version is extremely useful. Second, the change log is distributed with the application, even in cases where the source code isn't (this is especially useful when thinking about things like GUI auto-update checks, where I want to see the change log before I decide to upgrade). Third, the one-line summaries typically link back to commits or PRs, so when I see something I do want more information about, I can easily find the technical discussion about it.
I disagree. As a technical user who consumes many external repositories, I much prefer reading a changelog to reading a list of commits. First, I'm not reading this in a git client; I'm reading it in a web browser (likely on Github). In this interface, being able to see via headings the changes since my current version and the new version is extremely useful. Second, the change log is distributed with the application, even in cases where the source code isn't (this is especially useful when thinking about things like GUI auto-update checks, where I want to see the change log before I decide to upgrade). Third, the one-line summaries typically link back to commits or PRs, so when I see something I do want more information about, I can easily find the technical discussion about it.