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 1QU3tY-0005IT-0b for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:33:04 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BE051C15E; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:32:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349F61C1A0 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:32:26 +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 1BCD22AC007 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:32:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so4951630vws.40 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.112.164 with SMTP id ir4mr358344vdb.291.1307482343043; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:32:23 -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 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201106071709.34494.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <20110516033002.207452004F@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <201106071553.27793.vapier@gentoo.org> <4DEE8E61.7010109@gentoo.org> <201106071709.34494.vapier@gentoo.org> From: Matt Turner Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:32:03 -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: 3d4142558901297a455a95df79e7f750 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 ? =A0i dont find value in these entries, othe= r > 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. Matt