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 1RJCWT-0000Qk-PC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:04:37 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDD7721C3BA; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9F221C3A6; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:03:06 +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 EA5601B4014; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:03:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20111026205843.GH843@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> <1319652305.5300.7.camel@belkin4> <20111026205843.GH843@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-0WCa9D6TxMzN+XtfV1H7" Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:03:00 +0200 Message-ID: <1319670181.14838.0.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: e7871df7ab700a2f0c98e2d7ccfec976 --=-0WCa9D6TxMzN+XtfV1H7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mi=C3=A9, 26-10-2011 a las 22:58 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribi=C3=B3: > On 26-10-2011 20:05:05 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > 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 > >=20 > > And simply that > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > What do you think? >=20 > You can see it has been removed, but you typically want to know why. > That's the idea of the ChangeLog file. >=20 > Compare: >=20 > old >=20 > remove for security bug ... >=20 > [this is a placeholder, please ignore] >=20 > ^ >=20 > Version bump >=20 > Remove superseeded versions >=20 > Drop due to dep on =20 >=20 But most of times we simply remove old versions because they are old and, in that case, there is no need to add "Drop old" (as I am currently doing) --=-0WCa9D6TxMzN+XtfV1H7 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) iEYEABECAAYFAk6okaQACgkQCaWpQKGI+9S/twCeIobr/iLGEK6Uci1UZdTV1JqZ ZWkAnjKh9uckCe65YiCxCpN6ZUOStpHI =kmBD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-0WCa9D6TxMzN+XtfV1H7--