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 1NzOhZ-0004Om-9f for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 06:25:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97602E0C5A; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DD2E0BAD for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (graaff.xs4all.nl [80.101.101.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798AD1B40AF for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:25:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [git migration] The problem of ChangeLog generation From: Hans de Graaff To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4BBB31D0.3080702@gentoo.org> References: <4BBB31D0.3080702@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-dmZ2Y0jiJHNqNKm5VNW/" Organization: Gentoo Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:25:02 +0200 Message-ID: <1270621502.26456.7.camel@localhost> 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 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3.1 X-Archives-Salt: 3b4164d7-54e1-4bcb-b152-a54a0309df9f X-Archives-Hash: 9ef10d4b81e7dfe5c3d0e8842f235516 --=-dmZ2Y0jiJHNqNKm5VNW/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20 > already document this information, so why have it in a file? >=20 > It seems like the main purpose for it is for end-users to have some idea=20 > what changed in an ebuild. However, in my experience the upstream=20 > changes are far more impactful than the ebuild changes, and those aren't=20 > 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 --=-dmZ2Y0jiJHNqNKm5VNW/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAku8JT4ACgkQeM7EJeUH71MMfACfU5aKmsSzeglVp2v0NSH8hxqO tdIAnRdebjRzXEZiPxINPoF4MBwbTChh =iA+j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-dmZ2Y0jiJHNqNKm5VNW/--