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 1QofTk-0008Bk-Nq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:43:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D015621C217; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:43:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA72E21C214 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:43:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (wl-dy-169-228-178-213.ucsd.edu [169.228.178.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dberkholz) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AE911B4005 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:43:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:43:10 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request) Message-ID: <20110803174310.GB2924@comet.ucsd.edu> References: <20110602091338.GL14065@gentoo.org> <20110801201623.GX20656@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s/l3CgOIzMHHjg/5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110801201623.GX20656@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 68191eb6a4f14159ced32093fff85284 --s/l3CgOIzMHHjg/5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 22:16 Mon 01 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: > Auto generation of ChangeLogs, implies changes, and also influences=20 > how current ChangeLog information is to be handled. What if=20 > auto-generation is done, what does it take? For the purposes of a council meeting, I think we should construct a=20 small set of specific proposals to choose from so we don't get mired in=20 endless discussions during the meeting. I'd like to offer a couple of them for us to choose between. 1. Include all commits, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog=20 messages 2. Allow commit filtering, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog=20 messages - Filters to allow: keywording, stabilization, removal of ebuilds.=20 Whoever implements the code can decide on the format of said filters. Do any council members feel strongly that we should include additional=20 options, or is it good enough to just make a choice on these two? --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com --s/l3CgOIzMHHjg/5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk45iK4ACgkQXVaO67S1rtu8zQCfWDG8DGwnOt6hzxdAbT9KyLHQ dPIAoPSZjDF51mm8yEoSG3Hg83yO1t/o =VHmk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --s/l3CgOIzMHHjg/5--