From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FA31388C0 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:49:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 82CA821C03A; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:48:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A110E0853 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:48:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.6.147] ([91.125.237.217]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue104) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lln96-1ZzYis1B5c-00ZMYx for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:48:46 +0100 Message-ID: <56CEDC0D.2010109@iee.org> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:48:45 +0000 From: "M. J. Everitt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 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] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed? References: <56CCD4DC.3040509@gentoo.org> <56CCFE65.5050201@gentoo.org> <20160225080245.GA4542@daphne> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 OpenPGP: id=93C22371 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:/FjMTiss32pAm1cfGaiMbe4s2+fLiul557AwzFSncQ9+P1Pjs1k LBJwN4A40ubpFR0wsMvcrtRWX8Pe3bsd3vMHhHXe6Z9X1b3Pr+sKjaxxKxqfXbQlzAcYVlY nLgu2GW0K8x0K2L+zAYQN2ABHsf4Qc6+DgtHtaUm9LosPscBf+kahaT3PS5codhFDHdwb13 QALjglv0G9Ojx8bq1mFoA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:HVe7BaATxQM=:Kc5cLaqlzwQFg7DDv+ZVxx Q7pez/X+dKTACPjWs0gsXOhiNNVOBoJdjwz7gK3rY8PNhSYggQxvsDAVJj2iJJPucNYud14c9 UnvyorvN8vJBHTJwoP3pR5HXbwiveA+qWRI08300B2V7gQ5PG8En6uLphlZl4E9NYhw3qMcm8 JTyxOITPoTwdcRjzkXWRVDPokeveuHyL7mv8neYGDmOiIbSjQ5L2aDXatqmt5dJSJguwjUnci XvyYmJq8WgxIUhHKaucNHFFIw/ZXeVDGbXluMO2G2GOUGr6lo4lMf1dko9LSjH801wKBvdnbU VipTC2vjcXFfc4bQmHuYoKalBq+KHdb2jzuKts5M4ROc5Z6ZCRsR3zFgtvcfl7zozYUx2iVXs t0IdgwZP6np/sTWZdoNkgyfHFih7ipZxJSQn5wQ5y9gYZpk6AfZgPY1A9Azolw0MdE02IvcNT jtPQDXxY0FI3xhZFOEnZ5snydQzxmi+9oKARLEDi1/VrlHZSL/GJtfxmp7K0fcU4v7vtXbuEQ NIBqFCQCYWohfqfs91GxLhDLjwrcOhLLIzlmwUUsPXbW/0bKCOJ1XFcG8g5hSYlDDk/U2DqAh AXS6ENn09m1wRPUOIqjdvHFeZDxySo5H944YyH3jhAnpTHC2CCY/IHX/BG4ffwDEW+W7J2yFJ 2bMSdyMQNjB3V2KVM3ap/YGpVkSouRdfdfsmEV7yaNJbzbqhOPbQgzs2SmETquLSdb9NQUHwt qZGvKVfjMQHp+m3U X-Archives-Salt: af167ce1-a47e-4780-bfd6-26ec97851159 X-Archives-Hash: 20478c49b9e1412bd699c070a0e92578 On 25/02/16 08:59, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 25 February 2016 at 21:02, Consus wrote: >> Well, we do have one >> >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/dev-lang/perl >> >> I bet folks want to check out what's new in their local copy of >> Portage tree. > > > With a custom, portage oriented, on-demand log generator you could > produce a lot more detail ( and in a text format that doesn't > require a web browser to view ) , and potentially use > understanding of portage conventions to generate change data > outside those explicitly stated. > > Though that would be a "later feature" you could potentially bolt > on after the main logic was sorted out. > > The idea being you could request a changelog for a package with a > list of "interest aspects" and have the log reduced to changes > that affect those interests. > > For instance, you could do : > > curl http://thing.gentoo.org/changes/dev-lang/perl?arch=~x86 > > And with a bit of effort, you could generate a changelog that is > only relevant for somebody who is on ~x86, eliding changes that > x86 didn't get yet. > > For instance, an ~x86 filter would elide stabilizations for ~x86, > because you don't care about stabilizations if you're assuming > ~arch. ( And it would elide changes that were only visible for > other arches ) > > And this filter wouldn't necessarily be implemented in "grep for > keywords in the commit message", but *analyse the change in the > directory* based, which would give the ability to do things that > would otherwise only be possible with a git clone. > > > This idea is quite neat - you could do either some basic User-Agent check and either render a web page for viewing online for changes, or even have a specifier that gave you some other output options .. eg. ChangeLog (rev. chron) or basic web or XML or JSON which you could then post-process if you desired. I know this is kind of bloating the idea, but the flexibility and such would make it Really Useful .. I think, anyhow ... MJE