From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30511 invoked by uid 1002); 27 Apr 2003 23:06:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 18149 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2003 23:06:49 -0000 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:43:47 -0400 From: Aron Griffis To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20030427224347.GB3977@sesame> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20030427194445.GA23564@time> <3EAC55D4.1090607@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kXdP64Ggrk/fb43R" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EAC55D4.1090607@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] updated gentoolkit with echangelog modification X-Archives-Salt: e77a8679-4541-490f-b385-84f3bdbd1a40 X-Archives-Hash: ef3cf991f3dd023b63cb285d1ea11832 --kXdP64Ggrk/fb43R Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nicholas, I agree with all your reasons but I don't think I should revert this change without a general consensus. Here is what happened in the discussion a while ago, by my recollection: When I announced echangelog, lots of people liked it and also liked the new format. Dan Armak was concerned about consistency in the ChangeLogs so he asked Daniel Robbins about the sanctioned ChangeLog format. Daniel said that the old way was the right way. There was a flurry of continued discussion, a number of developers spoke up who felt one way or the other. In the end, there was no real decision except that Daniel did not recant his earlier statement. At the time, I had just finished putting some work into echangelog to make it use the new format, so I was hesitant to change the tool. Since then, the issue has come up a couple times on IRC that echangelog is still using the new format as opposed to the right format. For that reason, I finally made the change. The code is still in echangelog; it's trivial to re-enable the new format. However I don't think it should change until the discussion has been re-awakened and Daniel has said okay. Generally we can arrive at decisions without Daniel's blessing, but since he effectively vetoed it last time, I think we need to use the old format unless he says differently. Regarding -core vs -dev, I think this is a fine discussion for -dev; there may be outside input that would be beneficial. After all, the last time we talked about it was on -core and the discussion died=20 out. ;-) Aron --kXdP64Ggrk/fb43R Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+rF0jDxcWWTdf66ERAjb7AJ9V+pIHIpomQ3kAhHByk7/Ts6QFzACdG0RM +SwbTmFlYZNmF+xGzp7ML8w= =o4/t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kXdP64Ggrk/fb43R--