[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

"Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@gentoo.org> said:
> ssuominen    11/04/29 18:13:31
> 
>   Removed:              transmission-2.12.ebuild
>   Log:
>   drop old, broken with stable libnotify
>   
>   (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force)

When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Samuli Suominen]

On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@gentoo.org> said:
>> ssuominen    11/04/29 18:13:31
>>
>>   Removed:              transmission-2.12.ebuild
>>   Log:
>>   drop old, broken with stable libnotify
>>   
>>   (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force)
> 
> When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog.
> 
> Thanks,
> 

no thanks

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1205 bytes --]

Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> said:
> On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@gentoo.org> said:
> >> ssuominen    11/04/29 18:13:31
> >>
> >>   Removed:              transmission-2.12.ebuild
> >>   Log:
> >>   drop old, broken with stable libnotify
> >>   
> >>   (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force)
> > 
> > When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> 
> no thanks

Everytime you do this you make it that much more difficult for someone
to track down why a dependency just broke, or why a version they needed
went away.  You make a changelog entry when you add a version...removing
one is just as important.

This is a policy on the tree that you are needlessly breaking.  If you
want the policy changed, then go do that.  Otherwise, follow the
policies that are there for a reason.  Contrary to what you may think,
you are not special and the rules apply to you as well.


Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@gentoo.org> said:
>>> ssuominen    11/04/29 18:13:31
>>>
>>>   Removed:              transmission-2.12.ebuild
>>>   Log:
>>>   drop old, broken with stable libnotify
>>>
>>>   (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force)
>>
>> When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
> no thanks

Posts like these just make me want to unsubscribe.

Is there actually some debate as to whether ebuild removals should be
documented in the ChangeLog? Why shouldn't this be done? It hardly
takes any time at all.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1101 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 02:40:49PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> >> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@gentoo.org> said:
> >>> ssuominen    11/04/29 18:13:31
> >>>
> >>>   Removed:              transmission-2.12.ebuild
> >>>   Log:
> >>>   drop old, broken with stable libnotify
> >>>
> >>>   (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force)
> >>
> >> When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >
> > no thanks
> 
> Posts like these just make me want to unsubscribe.
> 
> Is there actually some debate as to whether ebuild removals should be
> documented in the ChangeLog? Why shouldn't this be done? It hardly
> takes any time at all.

Not that I know of. AFAIK, all changes made to ebuilds are supposed to
be documented in the ChangeLog. That includes version bumps, removals,
stabilizations, everything.

No, there is no good reason not to do this.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Jeremy Olexa]

On 04/29/2011 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)"<ssuominen@gentoo.org>  said:
>>> ssuominen    11/04/29 18:13:31
>>>
>>>    Removed:              transmission-2.12.ebuild
>>>    Log:
>>>    drop old, broken with stable libnotify
>>>
>>>    (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force)
>>
>> When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
> no thanks
>

Not that I want to start a war over this little thing, but multiple 
times I've cursed under my breath trying to track down something *not* 
documented in the ChangeLog and I've asked you multiple times as well to 
start doing thing. So, it makes my life easier if you document removals 
in the ChangeLog too, please do.
-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Samuli Suominen]

On 04/30/2011 07:10 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On 04/29/2011 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
>>> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)"<ssuominen@gentoo.org>  said:
>>>> ssuominen    11/04/29 18:13:31
>>>>
>>>>    Removed:              transmission-2.12.ebuild
>>>>    Log:
>>>>    drop old, broken with stable libnotify
>>>>
>>>>    (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan
>>>> options: --force)
>>>
>>> When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>
>> no thanks
>>
> 
> Not that I want to start a war over this little thing, but multiple
> times I've cursed under my breath trying to track down something *not*
> documented in the ChangeLog and I've asked you multiple times as well to
> start doing thing. So, it makes my life easier if you document removals
> in the ChangeLog too, please do.
> -Jeremy
> 

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

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?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Samuli Suominen]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

[-- 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 --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Duncan]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Peter Volkov]

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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Petteri Räty]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 213 bytes --]

On 04/30/2011 10:22 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> 
> I'd suggest having repoman force a changelog entry on ebuild removal.
> 

Opened yesterday:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365361

Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Samuli Suominen]

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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Petteri Räty]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 638 bytes --]

On 04/30/2011 11:35 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
> 

For me a removal is a change to the set of ebuilds in a package. Any way
I will start a new thread for a clearer text.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Dale]

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

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Dale]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild

[Jeroen Roovers]

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