[gentoo-dev] dev's updating changlogs

[gentoo-dev] dev's updating changlogs

[Dave Nellans]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 695 bytes --]

sorry to harp on this but after an emerge sync this afternoon
openoffice-bin wanted to upgrade to 1.1_beta after it has already been
upgraded once, then downgraded to 1.0.3.  yet in the Changelog there is
still NO entry past 1.0.2 from late january.

could devleopers PLEASE follow the procedure and update the changlogs?
while i appriciate the ebuild work, its quite annoying to see major
upgrades like this with zero documentation about it explaining why its
bouncing back and forth between versions...

sorry for a bit of rant but i think its important to update the
Changelogs so mere users of the package know why they're playing the
upgrade/downgrade game constantly!

dave

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev's updating changlogs

[Seth Chandler]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

this is my package and i added openoffice-bin 1.1_beta which was supposed to 
be masked, i personally don't comment out things that are supposed to be 
masked, i made an error and it was ~arch

then i added 1.0.3 which i should have done a changelog for, but i've been 
really busy with the actual from source version...

the change today was becuase 1.0.3 doesn't print...period

the openoffice guys made a booboo, and i've been working on getting patches

changelogs are key to our development, but i'm going to put most of my effort 
into the packages, which is IMO where they belong...i'll update the 
changelogs within a week (after all this printing stuff is sorted out)...

and the 'upgrade downgrade game' is more like the "working version game"

seth

On Wednesday 16 April 2003 20:21, Dave Nellans wrote:
> sorry to harp on this but after an emerge sync this afternoon
> openoffice-bin wanted to upgrade to 1.1_beta after it has already been
> upgraded once, then downgraded to 1.0.3.  yet in the Changelog there is
> still NO entry past 1.0.2 from late january.
>
> could devleopers PLEASE follow the procedure and update the changlogs?
> while i appriciate the ebuild work, its quite annoying to see major
> upgrades like this with zero documentation about it explaining why its
> bouncing back and forth between versions...
>
> sorry for a bit of rant but i think its important to update the
> Changelogs so mere users of the package know why they're playing the
> upgrade/downgrade game constantly!
>
> dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+nfIl7TKExlfwaNURAgFtAJ4yExZx6kBKy9WTc4jfR6pwGLAS1ACeI7yy
9wdAnBa92C58FO7GviTTkJU=
=MYG2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev's updating changlogs

[Dave Nellans]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2168 bytes --]

i hear you on putting the effort into the ebuilds and appriciate it very
much!  just a one liner for and update is often more than sufficient to
explain what is going on and appease vicious guys like me ;)

dave

On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 18:15, Seth Chandler wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> this is my package and i added openoffice-bin 1.1_beta which was supposed to 
> be masked, i personally don't comment out things that are supposed to be 
> masked, i made an error and it was ~arch
> 
> then i added 1.0.3 which i should have done a changelog for, but i've been 
> really busy with the actual from source version...
> 
> the change today was becuase 1.0.3 doesn't print...period
> 
> the openoffice guys made a booboo, and i've been working on getting patches
> 
> changelogs are key to our development, but i'm going to put most of my effort 
> into the packages, which is IMO where they belong...i'll update the 
> changelogs within a week (after all this printing stuff is sorted out)...
> 
> and the 'upgrade downgrade game' is more like the "working version game"
> 
> seth
> 
> On Wednesday 16 April 2003 20:21, Dave Nellans wrote:
> > sorry to harp on this but after an emerge sync this afternoon
> > openoffice-bin wanted to upgrade to 1.1_beta after it has already been
> > upgraded once, then downgraded to 1.0.3.  yet in the Changelog there is
> > still NO entry past 1.0.2 from late january.
> >
> > could devleopers PLEASE follow the procedure and update the changlogs?
> > while i appriciate the ebuild work, its quite annoying to see major
> > upgrades like this with zero documentation about it explaining why its
> > bouncing back and forth between versions...
> >
> > sorry for a bit of rant but i think its important to update the
> > Changelogs so mere users of the package know why they're playing the
> > upgrade/downgrade game constantly!
> >
> > dave
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE+nfIl7TKExlfwaNURAgFtAJ4yExZx6kBKy9WTc4jfR6pwGLAS1ACeI7yy
> 9wdAnBa92C58FO7GviTTkJU=
> =MYG2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev's updating changlogs

[Peter Ruskin]

On Thursday 17 Apr 2003 01:15, Seth Chandler wrote:
> the change today was becuase 1.0.3 doesn't print...period

What do you mean Seth?  I have 1.0.3 and can print.

Peter
-- 
Gentoo-1.4.2.8 Stable. KDE: 3.1.1a Qt: 3.1.2
AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2200+ 768MB.	Kernel: 2.4.20-xfs-r2.	GCC 3.2.2


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev's updating changlogs

[Dave Nellans]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 388 bytes --]

come to think of it i printed to a postscript file on 1.0.3 as well
without any problem (that is the only kind of "printing" i do)

dave

On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 20:32, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Thursday 17 Apr 2003 01:15, Seth Chandler wrote:
> > the change today was becuase 1.0.3 doesn't print...period
> 
> What do you mean Seth?  I have 1.0.3 and can print.
> 
> Peter
-- 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]