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 1QU4Sr-0001wu-O0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:09:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E3DEA1C052; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:09:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2AB1C064 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com (mail-vw0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0063E1B401C for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so4977653vws.40 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.108.105 with SMTP id hj9mr1084112vdb.211.1307484517048; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:08:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.52.167.136 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:08:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201106071747.19914.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <20110516033002.207452004F@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <201106071709.34494.vapier@gentoo.org> <201106071747.19914.vapier@gentoo.org> From: Matt Turner Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:08:17 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 77012c9a7f4328dcab1ba537744db804 On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, 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 fias= co >> >> 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* t= o >> >> 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. >> > >> > how is this relevant at all ? =A0i dont find value in these entries, o= ther >> > people do. =A0my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing= on >> > the policy towards creating it. >> >> Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal >> Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations. >> >> Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires >> changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting >> removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as >> well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version >> removals being useless. > > that wasnt my point, although it is a good one. =A0the idea that policy e= xists > because i disagree with others is bunk. =A0whether it be people complaini= ng to > other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still= a > policy XYZ. > -mike There _was_ a policy before, but it was unclear about documenting version removals and arguably didn't require it, so after a few developers (you've been often mentioned as one of them) refused to document version removals in the changelog, even after prompting on gentoo-dev@ the council fixed the policy. Of course the policy doesn't exist simply because you disagree with others, the policy exists (and was instituted/clarified) because you wouldn't do something that most developers and users find useful and thought was already policy, even after being asked. Why does this have to be such a struggle. It's pretty clear that the policy is going to be changed again to fix the oversight of silly situations like I mentioned previously, but there's a near unanimous agreement that documenting version removals _is_ useful. So, please, just start doing it. It's really not a lot of work. I'm sure something more can be done to make this more automated, but until then please just fucking do it and let's stop all this silliness. Matt