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 1OTLAe-0005sv-Mu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:43:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 718C4E0AAF; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:43:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.jolexa.net (mail.jolexa.net [69.164.203.224]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C56E09FB for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.jolexa.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 2A5C75D936; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:49:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5-gr2 (2008-06-10) on helios.jolexa.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5-gr2 Received: from mail.jolexa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jolexa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A5F5DC3C for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:49:30 +0000 (UTC) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:49:30 +0000 From: Jeremy Olexa To: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/python-openid: python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild In-Reply-To: <201006282226.51247.Arfrever@gentoo.org> References: <20100628194227.C34B42C621@corvid.gentoo.org> <48898e163b259e231be01e6bb1d928fe@localhost> <201006282226.51247.Arfrever@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <4c3504702d1ba64aa4c6fe1a6f265cc2@localhost> X-Sender: darkside@gentoo.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.4-trunk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 700d55fd-b9b4-4e28-b09c-80d65784600b X-Archives-Hash: 01400c4d0b888c2be801dd53d1ea2b63 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:26:17 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2010-06-29 04:05:54 Jeremy Olexa napisa=C5=82(a): >> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:42:27 +0000 (UTC), "Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar >> Arahesis (arfrever)" wrote: >> > arfrever 10/06/28 19:42:27 >> > >> > Modified: python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild >> > Log: >> > Fix dependencies. >> > (Portage version: HEAD/cvs/Linux x86_64) >> >> Is there any reason you are so non-verbose here? 'cvs log' or '$EDITOR >> ChangeLog' equally give us no information about your commit. You are >> making it hard on other devs in my opinion, I don't think intentionall= y, >> but can't you just use the ChangeLog more?? >=20 > It was intermediate commit during my work on python-openid-2.2.5.ebuild= . > python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild has been mentioned in ChangeLog in final com= mit. You are correct - 2.2.4 IS mentioned in the ChangeLog during the subsequent commit. So you think it is ok to hide the first commit under a ChangeLog entry of "Version bump" ? I don't see the logic. My issue with this is that other devs (or users) still don't know how or why the dependancies got in the 2.2.5 version or what deps were fixed. In this case, I would have committed a new 2.2.5 version with the ChangeLog entry of: "Version bump, fix python dependancies that are incorrect in the old" or somthing like that. This way commit #1 is not hidden and placed under a false entry of commit #2. -Jeremy