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 1QRC3R-0003BK-W2 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:39:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 47A3D1C089; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pw0-f53.google.com (mail-pw0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8891C062 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pwj5 with SMTP id 5so2117217pwj.40 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 16:38:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=oq39Sqdd9tkmf7K0ptgUqDB+KUBYR2pAoFuaWrg06dk=; b=mzbQ8RFfPd6kBdZgyV15l8SuzJ9X0Oij3oGfnSUzI1Yz+f68A4AGohx+gpwMwqnzMr PML7EpIFRIcziuBLw0Fmyg4Byi4Bt/AlT+quIfJ0g88zyQOY5PjgOJ0oW48vI2lBoJRK NKv8mN2QtPb2gepcmtSmf3pCtDkb7GZMAYUXs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=RFbpt445iQ+ni3nfMIJr7LUGWr272KfKJ/X1lUSXBHE8CcJJbLz7rj2+WXDgnVhoMn M7RXlGACuEctaz/UV1SAGac5HNg/Vq9Is7SxVl82kTpMK3rybyRxUMSrRApOc4LIpnvR nHfBLE+308naR6n2JyBxyKjYoGbN6chDsn/Mg= Received: by 10.68.17.164 with SMTP id p4mr2092664pbd.328.1306798722166; Mon, 30 May 2011 16:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-24-20-36-83.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [24.20.36.83]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w2sm3210188pbg.69.2011.05.30.16.38.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 30 May 2011 16:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 30 May 2011 16:38:34 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 16:38:34 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Common sense in [gentoo-dev] (was Council May Summary: Changes to ChangeLog handling) Message-ID: <20110530233834.GA21879@hrair> References: <4DD24EBE.5060002@gentoo.org> <1306757022.9216.36.camel@tablet> <20110530215552.GA3908@hrair> <201105310005.09218.dilfridge@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201105310005.09218.dilfridge@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 40577124471fbcd2ebf92e1f0ce51f18 --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:05:03AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Montag 30 Mai 2011, 23:55:52 schrieb Brian Harring: > > If someone has a definition that is commonsense, then propose it- the > > current "you must log everything" is very, very heavy handed and > > basically was a forced situation since QA cannot make folks behave > > when the rules are reliant on common sense. >=20 > Well how about "any change that can influence the behaviour of (portage|y= our=20 > favourite package manager) in any way or present the user with different= =20 > output"? Mostly correct, although the problem there is 'influence'; consider: src_unpack() { bunch of code } being changed into new_func() { bunch of code } src_unpack() { invoke new_func } That should have no influence, thus not being ChangeLog'd. The=20 problem is when the dev screws up, and it *has* an influence but no=20 ChangeLog. A more real world example is people abusing eval and other things=20 (python eclass for example)- folks can/do argue that it has no=20 influence, but the complexity means it may have unexpected affect. That's the crux of the issue, and it comes down to common sense. =20 Come up w/ a sane policy for things like that and I'll owe you some=20 beer. Either way, for the rest of it, as Diego said, LGTM. I'm just=20 nitpicking here to make it absolutely clear to people where we start=20 running into policy issues. ~brian --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk3kKnoACgkQsiLx3HvNzgfqewCgnKDlvSqCuIs1UiLzxtJdOB/C cFcAoN6aApTxB50rpNVskSpu0BJUHHbr =EFGh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY--