[gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 400 bytes --]

All,

In less than two weeks, the council will meet again.  This is the time
to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda to
vote on.

Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
suggested one (since the last meeting).


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:30:25 +0200
Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:

> In less than two weeks, the council will meet again.  This is the time
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
> to vote on.

As an extension of ChangeLog topic, I'd like to suggest to require
developers to commit packages with matching (same) ChangeLog entries
and commit messages.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 574 bytes --]

On 26-10-2011 18:35:51 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:30:25 +0200
> Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > In less than two weeks, the council will meet again.  This is the time
> > to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
> > to vote on.
> 
> As an extension of ChangeLog topic, I'd like to suggest to require
> developers to commit packages with matching (same) ChangeLog entries
> and commit messages.

Ok, what's your rationale behind that?


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 983 bytes --]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:37:24 +0200
Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 26-10-2011 18:35:51 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:30:25 +0200
> > Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In less than two weeks, the council will meet again.  This is the
> > > time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on
> > > the agenda to vote on.
> > 
> > As an extension of ChangeLog topic, I'd like to suggest to require
> > developers to commit packages with matching (same) ChangeLog entries
> > and commit messages.
> 
> Ok, what's your rationale behind that?

1) easier migration to autogenerated ChangeLogs if we want that at
some point,

2) better availability of the information (right now, looking up
changes sometimes involves checking both CVS log and ChangeLog message
to see what actually happened),

3) one step towards preventing useless ChangeLog entries.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 816 bytes --]

On 26-10-2011 18:49:27 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Ok, what's your rationale behind that?
> 
> 1) easier migration to autogenerated ChangeLogs if we want that at
> some point,

Since the Council has discussed that for several meetings to reach a
discussion, I don't think they are shortly going to change their minds.

> 2) better availability of the information (right now, looking up
> changes sometimes involves checking both CVS log and ChangeLog message
> to see what actually happened),

Could be considered as a bad commit message.

> 3) one step towards preventing useless ChangeLog entries.

Also this has been discussed and decided upon by the current and
previous Councils, so also that opinion is unlikely to suddenly change.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 426 bytes --]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:06:07 +0200
Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > 3) one step towards preventing useless ChangeLog entries.
> 
> Also this has been discussed and decided upon by the current and
> previous Councils, so also that opinion is unlikely to suddenly
> change.

I meant the useless ChangeLog messages done by developers on purpose
like 'ignore this'.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 705 bytes --]

On 26-10-2011 19:11:24 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:06:07 +0200
> Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > > 3) one step towards preventing useless ChangeLog entries.
> > 
> > Also this has been discussed and decided upon by the current and
> > previous Councils, so also that opinion is unlikely to suddenly
> > change.
> 
> I meant the useless ChangeLog messages done by developers on purpose
> like 'ignore this'.

Oh, you can just edit them, and "fix" the ChangeLog.

I hope people will keep on looking for those, and contact the developer
in question to ask him/her to change his/her behaviour.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1597 bytes --]

El mié, 26-10-2011 a las 19:15 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribió:
> On 26-10-2011 19:11:24 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:06:07 +0200
> > Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > 3) one step towards preventing useless ChangeLog entries.
> > > 
> > > Also this has been discussed and decided upon by the current and
> > > previous Councils, so also that opinion is unlikely to suddenly
> > > change.
> > 
> > I meant the useless ChangeLog messages done by developers on purpose
> > like 'ignore this'.
> 
> Oh, you can just edit them, and "fix" the ChangeLog.
> 
> I hope people will keep on looking for those, and contact the developer
> in question to ask him/her to change his/her behaviour.
> 
> 

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 <pacho@gentoo.org> -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. 
- Users will still see that a package was removed, as it's indicated
with "-" previous removed file.

What do you think?

From 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)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Matt Turner]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> El mié, 26-10-2011 a las 19:15 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribió:
>> On 26-10-2011 19:11:24 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:06:07 +0200
>> > Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > 3) one step towards preventing useless ChangeLog entries.
>> > >
>> > > Also this has been discussed and decided upon by the current and
>> > > previous Councils, so also that opinion is unlikely to suddenly
>> > > change.
>> >
>> > I meant the useless ChangeLog messages done by developers on purpose
>> > like 'ignore this'.
>>
>> Oh, you can just edit them, and "fix" the ChangeLog.
>>
>> I hope people will keep on looking for those, and contact the developer
>> in question to ask him/her to change his/her behaviour.
>>
>>
>
> 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 <pacho@gentoo.org> -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.
> - Users will still see that a package was removed, as it's indicated
> with "-" previous removed file.
>
> What do you think?
>
> From 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)

I think that makes a lot of sense.

Matt

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 952 bytes --]

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 <pacho@gentoo.org> -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. 
> - Users will still see that a package was removed, as it's indicated
> with "-" previous removed file.
> 
> What do you think?

You can see it has been removed, but you typically want to know why.
That's the idea of the ChangeLog file.

Compare:

old

remove for security bug ...

[this is a placeholder, please ignore]

^

Version bump

Remove superseeded versions

Drop due to dep on <libpng-1.5


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Fabian Groffen schrieb:
> You can see it has been removed, but you typically want to know why.
> That's the idea of the ChangeLog file.

One of the arguments for logging everything in ChangeLog was that
extracting this kind information from CVS can be cumbersome. So, I would
not agree with "typically".


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1194 bytes --]

El mié, 26-10-2011 a las 22:58 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribió:
> 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 <pacho@gentoo.org> -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. 
> > - Users will still see that a package was removed, as it's indicated
> > with "-" previous removed file.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> You can see it has been removed, but you typically want to know why.
> That's the idea of the ChangeLog file.
> 
> Compare:
> 
> old
> 
> remove for security bug ...
> 
> [this is a placeholder, please ignore]
> 
> ^
> 
> Version bump
> 
> Remove superseeded versions
> 
> Drop due to dep on <libpng-1.5
> 
> 

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)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]