Re: [gentoo-dev] [git migration] The problem of ChangeLog generation

[Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 909 bytes --]

On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:06 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Why not just get rid of the in-tree Changelogs entirely?  The scm logs 
> already document this information, so why have it in a file?
> 
> It seems like the main purpose for it is for end-users to have some idea 
> what changed in an ebuild.  However, in my experience the upstream 
> changes are far more impactful than the ebuild changes, and those aren't 
> in the Changelogs at all.

I pretty much always use the -l option of portage to include the
pertinent changes in the ChangeLog, because this is the only way to know
about any changes before the package is merged. Yes, the NEWS from the
package usually contains a lot more detail, but I won't be able to read
it until after the fact. In my experience plenty of ChangeLogs in our
tree at least briefly document what changed in the package as opposed to
the ebuild.

Hans

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]