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 1QGSc3-0006mZ-P3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 01 May 2011 09:06:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04C6F1C081; Sun, 1 May 2011 09:06:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FB71C049 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 09:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [83.146.207.236] (dyn-207-236-dsl.vsp.fi [83.146.207.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8B4D1B4049 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 09:04:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DBD22A7.3080500@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 12:06:47 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110426 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.9 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Devmanual text on ChangeLogs References: <4DBBCC6D.7080504@gentoo.org> <4DBBD02B.3060909@gentoo.org> <20110430203931.GA2414@Vereniki.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110430203931.GA2414@Vereniki.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 5c5526f5cdb1a9b318bb74e2aed7b9eb On 04/30/2011 11:39 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: > On 12:02 Sat 30 Apr , Samuli Suominen wrote: >> >> "Every new file, and modification to existing file should have an entry >> in ChangeLog." to skip the proper ChangeLog-less removals. > > There is something I can't undestand reading all the previous > discussions. You disagree with logging removals only because you don't > like the idea (you think it's useless information) or also because if > this becomes a policy, it will increase more the size of ChangeLogs? You > (and others) would still be negative if the problem with sizes etc. was > solved somehow? > No, but because of the quantity of commits[1] as a result of maintaining subset of issues tree wide at once (like libpng, jpeg, libnotify, *kit, u{disks,power}, lcms, fixing missing includes due to toolchain changes, adding some consts, imagine the rest ...) ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put into committing them. That's just not worth the effort. So not only they are rather useless, and information you can easily get from sources.gentoo.org, they take your time as well.