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 1RJ7sZ-0002ta-Vi for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:07:08 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A2A4921C24D; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCED21C245; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:05:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.35] (40.red-80-29-60.adsl.static.ccgg.telefonica.net [80.29.60.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 475701B4026; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:05:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20111026171554.GG843@gentoo.org> References: <20111026163025.GA843@gentoo.org> <20111026183551.32cfffe8@pomiocik.lan> <20111026163724.GB843@gentoo.org> <20111026184927.255ed3bb@pomiocik.lan> <20111026170607.GF843@gentoo.org> <20111026191124.411c1f00@pomiocik.lan> <20111026171554.GG843@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-HJAwh0YVrFcSOjK9iUEO" Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:05:05 +0200 Message-ID: <1319652305.5300.7.camel@belkin4> 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 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 59ffb35077ab7299d9e3df1036bcd777 --=-HJAwh0YVrFcSOjK9iUEO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mi=C3=A9, 26-10-2011 a las 19:15 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribi=C3=B3: > On 26-10-2011 19:11:24 +0200, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:06:07 +0200 > > Fabian Groffen wrote: > >=20 > > > > 3) one step towards preventing useless ChangeLog entries. > > >=20 > > > Also this has been discussed and decided upon by the current and > > > previous Councils, so also that opinion is unlikely to suddenly > > > change. > >=20 > > I meant the useless ChangeLog messages done by developers on purpose > > like 'ignore this'. >=20 > Oh, you can just edit them, and "fix" the ChangeLog. >=20 > I hope people will keep on looking for those, and contact the developer > in question to ask him/her to change his/her behaviour. >=20 >=20 Why don't we try to reach a consensus? Maybe we should be allowed to simply run echangelog (or whatever is used) to generate a message like: 26 Oct 2011; Pacho Ramos -pangomm-2.26.3.ebuild And simply that Pros: - People refusing to add a message saying "Drop old" (or similar) could be happy with this, as no redundant information is required to be written in ChangeLog.=20 - Users will still see that a package was removed, as it's indicated with "-" previous removed file. What do you think? =46rom my point of view, if we don't try to reach a consensus, we will expend time on things to enforce a policy that we could probably expend on other tasks and, then, maybe all of us should try to stop being so strict and try to give in a bit (not sure if it's the way in English to say "ceder" :S) --=-HJAwh0YVrFcSOjK9iUEO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk6oS9EACgkQCaWpQKGI+9SuVACffW14Plt18j1uZgkvSLAKP66l iksAnjolfSfYKdO6i6JxLD77+6teD8jN =Yu/t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-HJAwh0YVrFcSOjK9iUEO--