* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 4:39 ` Samuli Suominen
@ 2011-04-30 4:45 ` Matt Turner
2011-04-30 5:15 ` Samuli Suominen
2011-04-30 6:01 ` Amadeusz Żołnowski
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Matt Turner @ 2011-04-30 4:45 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
> not useful information to them
So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 4:45 ` Matt Turner
@ 2011-04-30 5:15 ` Samuli Suominen
2011-04-30 7:22 ` Duncan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Samuli Suominen @ 2011-04-30 5:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 04/30/2011 07:45 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
>> not useful information to them
>
> So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed?
>
Correct. That information is not useful, except when it is (like when
last stable was removed for some reason)
Enjoy:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365373
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 5:15 ` Samuli Suominen
@ 2011-04-30 7:22 ` Duncan
2011-05-01 0:10 ` Dale
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2011-04-30 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Samuli Suominen posted on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:15:55 +0300 as excerpted:
> On 04/30/2011 07:45 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen
>> <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
>>> not useful information to them
>>
>> So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed?
>>
>>
> Correct. That information is not useful, except when it is (like when
> last stable was removed for some reason)
>
> Enjoy:
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365373
I'm a user, and despite the fact that I tend to run ~arch or even pre-tree
testing overlays, I find ebuild removal information in the changelog WAY
more useful than, say, when some obscure arch keyworded a version.
Ergo, the argument that users don't find that info useful is disproven.
Users DO find it useful. I /as/ a user find it useful and get rather
annoyed when I'm trying to trace a change and there's no entry at all for
it in the changelog!
So, please /do/ make ebuild removal entries in the changelog, as users
/do/ find them useful. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 7:22 ` Duncan
@ 2011-05-01 0:10 ` Dale
2011-05-01 0:13 ` Dale
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Dale @ 2011-05-01 0:10 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Duncan wrote:
> I'm a user, and despite the fact that I tend to run ~arch or even pre-tree
> testing overlays, I find ebuild removal information in the changelog WAY
> more useful than, say, when some obscure arch keyworded a version.
>
> Ergo, the argument that users don't find that info useful is disproven.
> Users DO find it useful. I /as/ a user find it useful and get rather
> annoyed when I'm trying to trace a change and there's no entry at all for
> it in the changelog!
>
> So, please /do/ make ebuild removal entries in the changelog, as users
> /do/ find them useful. =:^)
>
>
I'm a user, tho a lowly one, and even I look in the changelogs from time
to time. I don't even see why this should be discussed. If you
*change* something, but it in the *change* log. If not, maybe the
changelog should be called something else.
Using the logic that something being removed is not a change, then
adding something is a change either. Adding something is important and
I think something being removed is important too.
Dale
:-) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-05-01 0:10 ` Dale
@ 2011-05-01 0:13 ` Dale
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Dale @ 2011-05-01 0:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1022 bytes --]
Dale wrote:
> I'm a user, tho a lowly one, and even I look in the changelogs from
> time to time. I don't even see why this should be discussed. If you
> *change* something, but it in the *change* log. If not, maybe the
> changelog should be called something else.
>
> Using the logic that something being removed is not a change, then
> adding something is a change either. Adding something is important
> and I think something being removed is important too.
>
> Dale
I'm a user, tho a lowly one, and even I look in the changelogs from time
to time. I don't even see why this should be discussed. If you
*change* something, put it in the *change* log. If not, maybe the
changelog should be called something else.
Using the logic that something being removed is not a change, then
adding something is not a change either. Adding something is important
and I think something being removed is important too.
Dale
:-) :-)
P. S. Corrected some bad typos. lol I need new glasses and better
fingers.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1809 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 4:39 ` Samuli Suominen
2011-04-30 4:45 ` Matt Turner
@ 2011-04-30 6:01 ` Amadeusz Żołnowski
2011-04-30 7:22 ` Andreas K. Huettel
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Amadeusz Żołnowski @ 2011-04-30 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 778 bytes --]
Excerpts from Samuli Suominen's message of Sat Apr 30 06:39:52 +0200 2011:
> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
> not useful information to them
If this is not useful information, then entry about added files is not
useful either - user see that files are there. Following that we could
eventually leave only entries which point to BugZilla.
In fact ChangeLogs don't seem to be very useful to users at all. I
think users are more interested in what has changed in the stuff in the
package and not the package itself.
Although ChangeLogs are useful to us. CVS sucks and it's more
comfortable to read ChangeLog file than cvs log.
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 4:39 ` Samuli Suominen
2011-04-30 4:45 ` Matt Turner
2011-04-30 6:01 ` Amadeusz Żołnowski
@ 2011-04-30 7:22 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2011-04-30 8:03 ` Petteri Räty
2011-04-30 7:34 ` Peter Volkov
2011-04-30 8:03 ` Petteri Räty
4 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2011-04-30 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 747 bytes --]
> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
> not useful information to them
>
> So no, I won't start cluttering up ChangeLogs and I would prefer if
> others would stop it as well
This makes no sense.
Either you document things, and then you have to keep the documentation
complete.
Or you dont bother with documentation at all.
I'd suggest having repoman force a changelog entry on ebuild removal.
Alternatively we forget about the ChangeLogs with the git migration and move
to git logs. (With a dcvs merging ChangeLogs will be a pain anyway.) But that
is a different discussion.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 4:39 ` Samuli Suominen
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-30 7:22 ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2011-04-30 7:34 ` Peter Volkov
2011-04-30 8:03 ` Petteri Räty
4 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Peter Volkov @ 2011-04-30 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
В Сбт, 30/04/2011 в 07:39 +0300, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> On 04/30/2011 07:10 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> sources.gentoo.org is for that.
It's not convenient to use browser to read ChangeLog.
> So no, I won't start cluttering up ChangeLogs and I would prefer if
> others would stop it as well
I'm the user and this information is useful for me. Please, stop
thinking for me and start adding ChangeLog entries.
If you think this clutters ChangeLog it's possible to make format more
terse, but please, document all changes (but typos and comments).
--
Peter.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 4:39 ` Samuli Suominen
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-30 7:34 ` Peter Volkov
@ 2011-04-30 8:03 ` Petteri Räty
2011-04-30 8:12 ` Samuli Suominen
2011-04-30 8:35 ` Ulrich Mueller
4 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Petteri Räty @ 2011-04-30 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 697 bytes --]
On 04/30/2011 07:39 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
> not useful information to them
>
> So no, I won't start cluttering up ChangeLogs and I would prefer if
> others would stop it as well
>
Individual developers (especially QA project members) should not be
ignoring policies when they feel like it.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
If you want to try and change the policy then put it on the agenda of
the next council meeting as there does not seem to be a consensus
backing your opinion. Until then everyone is expected to play by the rules.
Petteri
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 8:03 ` Petteri Räty
@ 2011-04-30 8:12 ` Samuli Suominen
2011-04-30 8:25 ` Petteri Räty
2011-05-02 2:20 ` Jeroen Roovers
2011-04-30 8:35 ` Ulrich Mueller
1 sibling, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Samuli Suominen @ 2011-04-30 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 04/30/2011 11:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 04/30/2011 07:39 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>>
>> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
>> not useful information to them
>>
>> So no, I won't start cluttering up ChangeLogs and I would prefer if
>> others would stop it as well
>>
>
>
> Individual developers (especially QA project members) should not be
> ignoring policies when they feel like it.
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
>
> If you want to try and change the policy then put it on the agenda of
> the next council meeting as there does not seem to be a consensus
> backing your opinion. Until then everyone is expected to play by the rules.
>
> Petteri
>
It no where in the link you provided mentions ChangeLog is required for
removals. Removing an unused ebuild is not the same as making changes to
an ebuild.
We have no policy for logging removals. And that's like it should be.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 8:12 ` Samuli Suominen
@ 2011-04-30 8:25 ` Petteri Räty
2011-05-02 2:20 ` Jeroen Roovers
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Petteri Räty @ 2011-04-30 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 549 bytes --]
On 04/30/2011 11:12 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> It no where in the link you provided mentions ChangeLog is required for
> removals. Removing an unused ebuild is not the same as making changes to
> an ebuild.
>
> We have no policy for logging removals. And that's like it should be.
>
It doesn't explicitly mention adding new ebuilds either so that's
optional too? I thought this issue would already be covered by common
sense but as it doesn't seem so we can clarify the issue in the next
council meeting.
Regards,
Petteri
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 8:12 ` Samuli Suominen
2011-04-30 8:25 ` Petteri Räty
@ 2011-05-02 2:20 ` Jeroen Roovers
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Jeroen Roovers @ 2011-05-02 2:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:12:27 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 04/30/2011 11:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
[..]
> It no where in the link you provided mentions ChangeLog is required
> for removals. Removing an unused ebuild is not the same as making
> changes to an ebuild.
I have to disagree:
BAD: .
GOOD: Purge old ebuilds
It's not really specific to the subject at hand, but it does /sort of/
tell you to write ChangeLog entries for removals. :)
I agree with you that logging removals isn't needed as their absence is
plain evidence. I do tend to log removals when there is a very good
reason other than that the version has been superseded, like when a
certain version kills kittens or has security issues. I agree with
everyone else that policy should be clarified and that the devmanual
needs to reflect policy.
jer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
2011-04-30 8:03 ` Petteri Räty
2011-04-30 8:12 ` Samuli Suominen
@ 2011-04-30 8:35 ` Ulrich Mueller
2011-04-30 8:42 ` Petteri Räty
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2011-04-30 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Individual developers (especially QA project members) should not be
> ignoring policies when they feel like it.
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
While I'm all for adding a ChangeLog entry when removing an ebuild,
this devmanual section doesn't say anything about it. It mentions only
changes to ebuilds, not removals.
Ulrich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread