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 1QUEzo-0001RN-T1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:24:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D32C1C067; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6311C048 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:23:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.112] (p4FC217C7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.194.23.199]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2111D1B4012; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:23:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DEF407F.50300@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:27:27 +0200 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110525 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10 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, council Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild References: <20110516033002.207452004F@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <201106071553.27793.vapier@gentoo.org> <4DEE8E61.7010109@gentoo.org> <201106071709.34494.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201106071709.34494.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 19a04fc51633aea7adbce54a09fbcbd3 @council: We need to discuss ways to improve the current policy. See below. On 06/07/11 23:09, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs >> about ChangeLogging removals. It was not only that, and the situation escalated as people tried to lawyer around instead of doing something productive like writing a perl script to wrap the "nonsense" so they can ignore it. Result was an unambiguous policy so that no lawyering happens and all ChangeLogs make sense. > > how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other > people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on the > policy towards creating it. So you say that you want to follow the rules but accidentally forgot it? Since it has caused so much trouble I'd like to see it discussed and improved by the council. I disagreed with the initial strict wording, and I think the fallout has shown that we need to find a common ground so that no one feels he has to ignore the rules. > if you want useless information, then automate it. there's no reason at all > to not do so. i prefer to keep useful information in the changelogs of > packages i maintain without cluttering up with noise. > -mike Here's the problem. Useful depends a lot on the context. Sometimes I only care about a new addition. Sometimes I care about when and how a patch was introduced. Sometimes I care about removals because some monkey has broken things for me. In all cases I want one resource to look at, viewcvs is a horrible and slow interface. So it does make sense to keep changelogs filled with information - maybe automation is needed, I don't have a strong opinion either way. But don't make me do more work because you are lazy, that never ends well. -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds