[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

"Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02
> 
>   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>   Log:
>   old

Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.

http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/

It'd also be better to do this all as one commit and run repoman with
each commit.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[RB]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 07:41, Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:
> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>> vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02
>>
>>   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>>   Log:
>>   old
>
> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.

It would also seem manifests weren't regenerated.  Don't have the time
to go look if they were all touched by the same individual, but since
Friday afternoon bzip2, cabextract, rsyslog, rubygems, and
ca-certificates all come up with files missing from the manifest.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Kacper Kowalik]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

W dniu 16.05.2011 15:41, Mark Loeser pisze:
> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02
>>
>> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>> Log:
>> old
>
> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/
>
> It'd also be better to do this all as one commit and run repoman with
> each commit.
>
> Thanks,
I don't understand the purpose of such mails (it's 2nd within the
period of few days).
Council have already voted that those changes should be added to
changelog so there's nothing technical to discuss.

As for the conflict resolution the policy states:
1) try to resolve the issue among yourselves
2) consult with the project lead (QA?)
3) if all fails go to devrel
Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
conclusive.
Cheers,
Kacper
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iJwEAQECAAYFAk3RZMwACgkQIiMqcbOVdxRGuAP+JHinAeoeYqSxAqfjqcP5Q922
Jr8E4IPPpazlVUeWrtg2uHOIShkHQI8l5djiJ7mnsVGkRooPibX4ndX9rHLkwErH
XahKTnHiUPSl1qoMr6f5fyqjQQ7O6dvpVXpT9O6g1/lyRmbnTB2dj6ts5trO88XL
n7ehyPhupEewFjGAjbU=
=Lvvm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 391 bytes --]

El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
> to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
> conclusive.
To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer
following the list) it is a good way to learn from others' mistake
before applying for full developership.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
> > to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
> > conclusive.
> To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer
> following the list) it is a good way to learn from others' mistake
> before applying for full developership.
> 

This may be a bit of surprise to you but this is not an educational
list. If you people disagree with these kind of commits feel free to
open a bug to QA/Devrel like the policy suggests. But pretty please 
try to break this non-sense loop of this and similar threads.

Regards,
-- 
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Alec Warner]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
>> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
>> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
>> > to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
>> > conclusive.
>> To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer
>> following the list) it is a good way to learn from others' mistake
>> before applying for full developership.
>>
>
> This may be a bit of surprise to you but this is not an educational
> list. If you people disagree with these kind of commits feel free to
> open a bug to QA/Devrel like the policy suggests. But pretty please
> try to break this non-sense loop of this and similar threads.

I actually value times when this stuff is CC'd to the list, is there
some other list you think folks should CC problems on?

>
> Regards,
> --
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1441 bytes --]

Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> said:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> >> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> >> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
> >> > to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
> >> > conclusive.
> >> To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer
> >> following the list) it is a good way to learn from others' mistake
> >> before applying for full developership.
> >>
> >
> > This may be a bit of surprise to you but this is not an educational
> > list. If you people disagree with these kind of commits feel free to
> > open a bug to QA/Devrel like the policy suggests. But pretty please
> > try to break this non-sense loop of this and similar threads.
> 
> I actually value times when this stuff is CC'd to the list, is there
> some other list you think folks should CC problems on?

This is exactly where these sorts of emails should go so every other
developer can see what's going on and ensure they are also following
current policies.

Don't make yet another list...that's just pointless.

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1514 bytes --]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:45:14PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:19:45PM +0200, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> >> El 16/05/11 19:54, Kacper Kowalik escribió:
> >> > Neither of those points include sending mail to gentoo-dev, which tend
> >> > to quickly convert into the "witch hunt" and seldom lead to anything
> >> > conclusive.
> >> To some of us (i.e. me as a staffer and probably any wanna be developer
> >> following the list) it is a good way to learn from others' mistake
> >> before applying for full developership.
> >>
> >
> > This may be a bit of surprise to you but this is not an educational
> > list. If you people disagree with these kind of commits feel free to
> > open a bug to QA/Devrel like the policy suggests. But pretty please
> > try to break this non-sense loop of this and similar threads.
> 
> I actually value times when this stuff is CC'd to the list, is there
> some other list you think folks should CC problems on?
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> >
> 
This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on gentoo-dev
list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established policies which
should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels like it worths
pushing it so far. 

Regards,
-- 
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 595 bytes --]

On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on
> gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established
> policies which should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels
> like it worths pushing it so far. 

No, it's reminding a developer of what current policies are. And if one
developer has forgotten or hasn't seen recent changes, others are
probably in the same situation too, so a friendly reminder where
everyone can see it helps everyone.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 950 bytes --]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:52:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on
> > gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established
> > policies which should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels
> > like it worths pushing it so far. 
> 
> No, it's reminding a developer of what current policies are. And if one
> developer has forgotten or hasn't seen recent changes, others are
> probably in the same situation too, so a friendly reminder where
> everyone can see it helps everyone.
> 
> -- 
> Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran,

I would agree with you if this wasn't the second time we talk about this
within a week.

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_64aa35ae3aff8e711fc280c238d8f44c.xml

Regards,
-- 
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Dane Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/16/11 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:51:00 +0100
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> This problem is not a technical one to justify discussion on
>> gentoo-dev list. This is clearly a disagreement over the established
>> policies which should go through QA and/or Devrel if someone feels
>> like it worths pushing it so far. 
> 
> No, it's reminding a developer of what current policies are. And if one
> developer has forgotten or hasn't seen recent changes, others are
> probably in the same situation too, so a friendly reminder where
> everyone can see it helps everyone.
> 

I agree with you when it isn't a recent topic of "reminder" in -dev.
This is the third such e-mail since 4/29. Reminding has been done. The
"technical" discussion has occurred. Policy has been debated. This is
ruddy simple folks. *Update* the ChangeLog.

I don't think another mailing list is the answer. Issues with commits
should come to -dev for sure. Reminding can certainly occur on this one
as well. But when I see the same issue come up 3 times in less than one
month with almost the same title, it becomes a nuisance. The rule is simple.

So please, if only to save us seeing more -dev spam, update your
ChangeLogs =D.

Regards,

- -- 
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN0YKTAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxMsQP/2l8ai04ICf8gYg+0fXS3U45
XuvgPk/fFd1yPSDCS4K6duAMQBJ3lgJLNZpW0keBv+UFP07eeRr8EcFfm1P/lBYW
cyuCPWjUMHWW0pYx5t+E5iOpe+NaR4nRN274CzFsOG8lpbMtGfC0u36UmsxfLk9K
ELQki+ExBbAj3N9eMpH9gZ+PaW/l6pICZLt/ygGB8GbZXqrO1OMjQI5M4CyyZyvV
ewnf/PxvKLRU14gfNDNRs7XfOVuerxda/2uWlU6fMoaidvIpdYKYez55wEVx7aC8
ZLHeQkTdtZ0rIIOkvv6N3lM5V8DWiTDoOgKw/6ncAUi6q0unwncJQlg0+QiuYkud
/EkwvV7yrJ36aQmdg44F9mAVqiNil1u7BOYqHsDWCr+c2gkDYr06a9YhWrJX7juE
DIugEug79hbC1xcZZCeDx9o5ANTOg15jTEHLPLj0kw2Js14CZdOdOUiZLQTtdmW5
MlGUbt1iI6xnf2wMXSzKSkUg7n68o5eLwOgxILyMla2AlI3W60p0zHk/LHYcbcNz
FxZH3M/g3gx7Tc9EvcteqN0Wwy+2xVwZ5h4TQV2a/h6Bgo/VSf9Yll/PjS1OEvdU
JH29IXW+uWSS5PAC5iOrNi1rkpIMiH6ceXJr9CtTDohllpd0Mq3CreXKaMaVT90G
GVizH5BOPgVJ9a+6cqaG
=HEyM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 561 bytes --]

On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> > vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02
> > 
> >   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
> >   Log:
> >   old
> 
> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.

waste of time.  i simply wont bother removing old versions until changelogs 
start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.

> It'd also be better to do this all as one commit and run repoman with
> each commit.

seems you left out "imo" in this statement.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Dane Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/07/11 15:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>>> vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02
>>>
>>>   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>>>   Log:
>>>   old
>>
>> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
> 
> waste of time.  i simply wont bother removing old versions until changelogs 
> start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.
> 
snip
> -mike

Mike,
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. You and I both know that a removal can
(and sometimes does) cause breakage. These kinds of changes are things
that your fellow devs (as well as many users) would like to see in
ChangeLogs. I do *not* think that this is an unreasonable request. I
find it to be a little.. inconsiderate I guess, when any developer fails
to heed a reasonable request from another developer or user. I know I
personally try to accommodate people if they ask me to do something
slightly differently to make their lives easier. Why is it that you
can't do that? Is running echangelog (or hell, scripting something) for
a removal really that hard or undesirable? Can you really not spare the
extra 10 seconds? I mean, come on.

Regards,
- -- 
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=z3hd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1590 bytes --]

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.

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.

> You and I both know that a removal can (and sometimes does) cause breakage.
> These kinds of changes are things that your fellow devs (as well as many
> users) would like to see in ChangeLogs. I do *not* think that this is an
> unreasonable request. I find it to be a little.. inconsiderate I guess, when
> any developer fails to heed a reasonable request from another developer or
> user. I know I personally try to accommodate people if they ask me to do
> something slightly differently to make their lives easier. Why is it that
> you can't do that? Is running echangelog (or hell, scripting something) for
> a removal really that hard or undesirable? Can you really not spare the
> extra 10 seconds? I mean, come on.

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Samuli Suominen]

On 06/07/2011 10:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>>> vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02
>>>
>>>   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>>>   Log:
>>>   old
>>
>> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
> 
> waste of time.  i simply wont bother removing old versions until changelogs 
> start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.

+1, see: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097#c75

and I have to say it's all on councils shoulders how bad of an impact
this will have on the tree with several devs leaving old files around or
leaving trivial fixes uncommitted to workaround bad policy.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 448 bytes --]


> On 06/07/11 15:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
(...)
> > waste of time.  i simply wont bother removing old versions until
> > changelogs start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.

For the record, I support Dane's statement 100%. 

In addition, I would like to say that you're behaving pretty much childish and 
obstructive.

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 685 bytes --]

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:14:05 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > On 06/07/11 15:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > waste of time.  i simply wont bother removing old versions until
> > > changelogs start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.
> 
> For the record, I support Dane's statement 100%.
> 
> In addition, I would like to say that you're behaving pretty much childish
> and obstructive.

in no way whatsoever am i obstructing anyone.  look up the word and try again.

as for childish, that's your opinion of course and everyone has one.  here's 
another: forcing useless information which can be automatically dumped is a 
waste of developer time.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Dane Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/07/11 17:09, 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

There never would have been any such policy had people been a little
considerate of the requests of others. This could have ended like so:

Dev y: "Hey dev x, can you please ChangeLog removals please. I find it
very useful."
Dev x: "Sure. I don't see use in the information, but if it's going to
make your job easier, I'll try to remember to do it."
Dev y: "Thanks!"

Then this never would have even gotten to council, council never would
have passed the current policy, and we never would have gotten to the
bloody crapfest that it is now.

I personally want people to heed my requests. The only way that will
work is if I try to heed others. The only way to work in a community is
a little give and take.

>> You and I both know that a removal can (and sometimes does) cause breakage.
>> These kinds of changes are things that your fellow devs (as well as many
>> users) would like to see in ChangeLogs. I do *not* think that this is an
>> unreasonable request. I find it to be a little.. inconsiderate I guess, when
>> any developer fails to heed a reasonable request from another developer or
>> user. I know I personally try to accommodate people if they ask me to do
>> something slightly differently to make their lives easier. Why is it that
>> you can't do that? Is running echangelog (or hell, scripting something) for
>> a removal really that hard or undesirable? Can you really not spare the
>> extra 10 seconds? I mean, come on.
> 
> 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.

Just because you deem it useless doesn't make it so. If someone else
sees use in the information, I fail to see why it is such a huge deal to
log it. Even if for no other reason than to make someone else's life a
bit easier.

And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
situation.

Regards,
- -- 
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=7Ajj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 10:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
>>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>>>> vapier      11/05/16 03:30:02
>>>>
>>>>   Removed:              bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>>>>   Log:
>>>>   old
>>>
>>> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
>>
>> waste of time.  i simply wont bother removing old versions until changelogs
>> start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.
>
> +1, see: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097#c75
>
> and I have to say it's all on councils shoulders how bad of an impact
> this will have on the tree with several devs leaving old files around or
> leaving trivial fixes uncommitted to workaround bad policy.

To avoid cluttering that bug report more, I'll respond here.

It seems like the obvious answer is yes. The devrel resolution simply
says that you can have commit access back after promising to follow
the policy, and I can't see any way you wouldn't be following the
policy by not making commits where you'd have otherwise left the
changelog untouched.

Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 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.
>
> 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.

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.

Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1486 bytes --]

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:23:23 Dane Smith wrote:
> On 06/07/11 17:09, 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> There never would have been any such policy had people been a little
> considerate of the requests of others. This could have ended like so:

sorry, but that's utter bs.  there is a disconnect between what you find 
valuable and what i find valuable.  all you're doing is assuming your position 
is right and mine is wrong and thus i'm in the wrong and thus any disagreement 
that causes strife after that is my fault.  if common ground between 
developers cannot be attained, then it is the council's job to step in and 
make a decision.

> And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
> situation.

of course it does.  it makes the current situation irrelevant.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 400 bytes --]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
> > situation.
> 
> of course it does.  it makes the current situation irrelevant.

Does this mean we should shortly be expecting to see you do the work to
migrate the tree to Git and to automate ChangeLog generation?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Alec Warner]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
>> > situation.
>>
>> of course it does.  it makes the current situation irrelevant.
>
> Does this mean we should shortly be expecting to see you do the work to
> migrate the tree to Git and to automate ChangeLog generation?

Automated changelog entries do not require git.

-A

>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 589 bytes --]

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:36:59 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
> > > situation.
> > 
> > of course it does.  it makes the current situation irrelevant.
> 
> Does this mean we should shortly be expecting to see you do the work to
> migrate the tree to Git and to automate ChangeLog generation?

the tree has already been migrated.  automatic ChangeLog generation is trivial 
to implement, and many many projects already have scripts to do it.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1504 bytes --]

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 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.  the idea that policy exists 
because i disagree with others is bunk.  whether it be people complaining to 
other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still a 
policy XYZ.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 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 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.
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> 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.  the idea that policy exists
> because i disagree with others is bunk.  whether it be people complaining 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1985 bytes --]

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 18:08:17 Matt Turner wrote:
> 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.

i'm aware of the history.  it still doesnt validate the logic cited earlier.

> 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.

seems we gauge things differently as i dont think it's that black & white, 
although it probably is further in your white than in my black.  further, i 
dont believe people actually get useful information out of this, they just 
think they do (perception vs reality).  when an actual bug arises, the 
information contained in the ChangeLog doesnt assist in the bug triage/fixing.  
depgraph broken -> file removed -> reason is irrelevant to the user.  
maintainer of the package causing the depgraph breakage gets a bug in bugzilla 
and they address it by either re-adding, or trimming more, or tweaking deps, 
or something else.  so if someone wants a fuzzy security blanket, they can 
look to autogeneration and then it's no longer my problem.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Dale]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> seems we gauge things differently as i dont think it's that black&  white,
> although it probably is further in your white than in my black.  further, i
> dont believe people actually get useful information out of this, they just
> think they do (perception vs reality).  when an actual bug arises, the
> information contained in the ChangeLog doesnt assist in the bug triage/fixing.
> depgraph broken ->  file removed ->  reason is irrelevant to the user.
> maintainer of the package causing the depgraph breakage gets a bug in bugzilla
> and they address it by either re-adding, or trimming more, or tweaking deps,
> or something else.  so if someone wants a fuzzy security blanket, they can
> look to autogeneration and then it's no longer my problem.
> -mike
>    

Mike and others as it applies,

I have a question or two.  I don't care if you, or others, reply to this 
with a answer, just think on it.  A policy, rule if you will, has been 
decided on by the council.  This after MUCH discussion on this list and 
the council hearing both sides of the argument.  You, apparently on your 
own or with a few others, have decided to ignore the policy or rule.

What would you think if someone else ignores another rule that affects 
you, negatively of course?  What would you do?  What do you think should 
be done to the person ignoring the rule?  Should that person be allowed 
to do so with no consequences at all?  Just everyone do as they wish 
regardless of the rules.  What affect would that have on Gentoo as a 
whole?  Do you really want to see this happen after all the mess Gentoo 
has been through in the past?

Think on that for a bit.  Give it a day or so or better yet, sleep on it.

Again, I don't care for you to answer or reply.  Just think.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 467 bytes --]

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 19:41:20 Dale wrote:
> I have a question or two.  I don't care if you, or others, reply to this
> with a answer, just think on it.  A policy, rule if you will, has been
> decided on by the council.  This after MUCH discussion on this list and
> the council hearing both sides of the argument.  You, apparently on your
> own or with a few others, have decided to ignore the policy or rule.

umm, no, ive done no such thing.  try again.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 823 bytes --]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:45:03 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:36:59 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the
> > > > current situation.
> > > 
> > > of course it does.  it makes the current situation irrelevant.
> > 
> > Does this mean we should shortly be expecting to see you do the
> > work to migrate the tree to Git and to automate ChangeLog
> > generation?
> 
> the tree has already been migrated.  automatic ChangeLog generation
> is trivial to implement, and many many projects already have scripts
> to do it.

Including portage's egencache which can generate ChangeLogs from git.
Just a side note.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Dale]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 19:41:20 Dale wrote:
>    
>> I have a question or two.  I don't care if you, or others, reply to this
>> with a answer, just think on it.  A policy, rule if you will, has been
>> decided on by the council.  This after MUCH discussion on this list and
>> the council hearing both sides of the argument.  You, apparently on your
>> own or with a few others, have decided to ignore the policy or rule.
>>      
> umm, no, ive done no such thing.  try again.
> -mike
>    

Let me see if I understand this correctly.  Most devs and some users 
wants things put in the changelog.  I don't know if it was you before 
but in the past someone didn't want to put when versions are removed.  
That person, whoever it was, said they were not going to do it because 
it was silly or whatever.  This was taken to the council and it was 
decided that all changes had to be put in the changelog.  Now in this 
thread, about the same thing from my understanding.  You said "waste of 
time" and the policy is not "sane".

So, council says it has to be done.  You say you won't.  Tell me where I 
missed the point here.

Thanks for the reply but I think this is going to be headed back up the 
food chain again.  It appears that either rules mean nothing or they 
have to be enforced on everyone.  The rule makers need to decide this.  
I suspect the reason this thread has gotten quiet is because it has 
already been discussed off this list about what is coming next.  Just me 
reading tea leaves here.

My advice, follow the rules or get the rules changed.  Don't break them 
tho.  It doesn't matter to me if you take that advice or not.  Just saying.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Patrick Lauer]

@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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.

IMO we should just make repoman commit update the ChangeLog.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 721 bytes --]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:28:47 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> IMO we should just make repoman commit update the ChangeLog.

What if we wanted to remove ChangeLogs then for autogeneration? Will we
require all devs to quickly update their portage versions?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Samuli Suominen]

On 06/08/2011 12:28 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> IMO we should just make repoman commit update the ChangeLog.

Then repoman commit should have a flag to leave out removals from
ChangeLog entries so unlazy people can still leave the cruft out from them.

Ref. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365373

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Patrick Lauer]

On 06/08/11 11:43, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:28:47 +0200
> Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> IMO we should just make repoman commit update the ChangeLog.
> 
> What if we wanted to remove ChangeLogs then for autogeneration? Will we
> require all devs to quickly update their portage versions?
> 

Just make committing the ChangeLog fatal on the server side ;)

There are enough ways to get it done ...

-- 
Patrick Lauer         http://service.gentooexperimental.org

Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist
Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:45, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> IMO we should just make repoman commit update the ChangeLog.
>
> Then repoman commit should have a flag to leave out removals from
> ChangeLog entries so unlazy people can still leave the cruft out from them.
>
> Ref. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365373

I disagree; I think having the information about removed packages is useful.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Duncan]

Dale posted on Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:45:34 -0500 as excerpted:

> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 19:41:20 Dale wrote:
>>    
>>> I have a question or two.  I don't care if you, or others, reply to
>>> this with a answer, just think on it.  A policy, rule if you will, has
>>> been decided on by the council.  This after MUCH discussion on this
>>> list and the council hearing both sides of the argument.  You,
>>> apparently on your own or with a few others, have decided to ignore
>>> the policy or rule.
>>>      
>> umm, no, ive done no such thing.  try again. -mike
>>    
>>    
> Let me see if I understand this correctly.  Most devs and some users
> wants things put in the changelog.  I don't know if it was you before
> but in the past someone didn't want to put when versions are removed.
> That person, whoever it was, said they were not going to do it because
> it was silly or whatever.  This was taken to the council and it was
> decided that all changes had to be put in the changelog.  Now in this
> thread, about the same thing from my understanding.  You said "waste of
> time" and the policy is not "sane".
> 
> So, council says it has to be done.  You say you won't.  Tell me where I
> missed the point here.

Mike's actually correct.

He didn't say he was going to defy council, rather, that he simply 
wouldn't be removing ebuilds /at/ /all/ until either the changelog is auto-
generated (making the case moot) or the council changes policy.

That means they'll either fall to someone else to do, or will simply 
remain there, but either way, it's quite different from directly defying 
the council decision.

Gentoo devs are volunteers in any case, and as such, the system, to the 
degree that it works at all, does so because volunteers are (within 
reason) allowed to have their foibles and the system ultimately works 
around them.  Because everyone has their foibles and if "the system" 
couldn't work around them, "the system" would quickly cease to be!

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> He didn't say he was going to defy council, rather, that he simply
> wouldn't be removing ebuilds /at/ /all/ until either the changelog is auto-
> generated (making the case moot) or the council changes policy.
>
> That means they'll either fall to someone else to do, or will simply
> remain there, but either way, it's quite different from directly defying
> the council decision.
>

As long as all versions in the tree compile cleanly and are free from
security issues, I don't see any issue with keeping older ebuilds
around.  If anything I think that some packages are too quick to
remove ~arch versions.  I run stable but accept the odd ~arch package.
 When I do accept a ~arch package I only accept one version of it with
the goal of going stable once whatever drove me to accept ~arch gets
there.  When the ~arch package disappears I just have to re-evaluate
my new options and try again, and sometimes it feels like I never end
up in stable.  (I do realize that a few types of packages will
probably never be stable by their nature, and that is fine.)

If old versions become QA issues then we already have processes to
deal with that.  It is the duty of maintainers to deal with such
problems.

In any case, the rule is simple - if you remove an ebuild you have to
include a note in the Changelog.  That could change, or it might not,
or perhaps it will become automated, but either way it is the rule
right now.

One thing I will say is that I appreciate the civility in this thread
so far.  I think everybody on both sides of the issue realizes that
this is contentious, and I think everybody would be open to a better
solution.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 23:44:49 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:45:03 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:36:59 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the
> > > > > current situation.
> > > > 
> > > > of course it does.  it makes the current situation irrelevant.
> > > 
> > > Does this mean we should shortly be expecting to see you do the
> > > work to migrate the tree to Git and to automate ChangeLog
> > > generation?
> > 
> > the tree has already been migrated.  automatic ChangeLog generation
> > is trivial to implement, and many many projects already have scripts
> > to do it.
> 
> Including portage's egencache which can generate ChangeLogs from git.
> Just a side note.

very cool ... wasnt aware of that guy, thanks
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 285 bytes --]

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 23:45:34 Dale wrote:
> So, council says it has to be done.  You say you won't.  Tell me where I
> missed the point here.

you missed the point as soon as you incorrectly stated that i said i wont.  
thus the rest of your e-mail is useless noise.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 272 bytes --]

On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 05:27:27 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> So you say that you want to follow the rules but accidentally forgot it?

no idea what you're talking about.  the new policy has 0 relevance to actions 
performed before said policy went into effect.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 05:27:27 Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> So you say that you want to follow the rules but accidentally forgot it?
>
> no idea what you're talking about.  the new policy has 0 relevance to actions
> performed before said policy went into effect.
> -mike

Right, to be perfectly clear, the initial email in this thread was
from halcy0n (May 16), and it was about something that happened before
the new policy.

Mike's first reply in this thread was after the new policy and was 3
weeks later on Jun 7.

Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 214 bytes --]

On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 13:40:49 Matt Turner wrote:
> and was 3 weeks later on Jun 7.

i havent had much time for Gentoo lately :/.  but maybe people think that's 
good so i'll stop being a hassle.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Dale]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 23:45:34 Dale wrote:
>    
>> So, council says it has to be done.  You say you won't.  Tell me where I
>> missed the point here.
>>      
> you missed the point as soon as you incorrectly stated that i said i wont.
> thus the rest of your e-mail is useless noise.
> -mike
>    

So, you are saying that you won't be doing anything that will require 
you to add entries to the changelog.  That works.  It doesn't do much 
for the packages you maintain but that doesn't break the rules either.

Let's just hope in the meantime things stay stable.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 13:04:08 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 23:45:34 Dale wrote:
> > So, council says it has to be done.  You say you won't.  Tell me where I
> > missed the point here.
> 
> you missed the point as soon as you incorrectly stated that i said i wont.
> thus the rest of your e-mail is useless noise.

sorry, this was probably overly dismissive.  let's rephrase to something like 
"the long e-mails were redundant/rhetorical and incorrectly attempted to apply 
to me".
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]