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 1QqqB4-0006zh-RJ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:33:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F53521C149; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA76D21C13D for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:33:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (mayo-nat4.mayo.edu [129.176.197.23]) (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 2D51E1B4006 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:33:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 12:32:57 -0500 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: <20110809173257.GE25611@comet.mayo.edu> References: <20110602091338.GL14065@gentoo.org> <20110801201623.GX20656@gentoo.org> <20110803174310.GB2924@comet.ucsd.edu> <20110803175650.GN20656@gentoo.org> <20110803180907.GC2924@comet.ucsd.edu> <20110803183304.GP20656@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="6Vw0j8UKbyX0bfpA" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110803183304.GP20656@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 85bba3bcdbb2d8a1962beb7bd9e0b957 --6Vw0j8UKbyX0bfpA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20:33 Wed 03 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 03-08-2011 11:09:07 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > > 1. Include all commits, don't retroactively change existing ChangeL= og=20 > > > > messages > > > >=20 > > > > 2. Allow commit filtering, don't retroactively change existing Chan= geLog=20 > > > > messages > > > >=20 > > > > - Filters to allow: keywording, stabilization, removal of ebuilds.= =20 > > > > Whoever implements the code can decide on the format of said filter= s. > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Do any council members feel strongly that we should include additio= nal=20 > > > > options, or is it good enough to just make a choice on these two? > > >=20 > > > I listed the questions I think are relevant at the bottom of my mail.= I > > > feel you forgot the most important one: should ChangeLogs be > > > auto-generated at all?. Only if yes, > >=20 > > Yeah, that's already on my draft agenda [1]. =3D) But we should still h= ave=20 > > a small set of options to choose from if we do vote to automate, so we= =20 > > don't sit around for another month or discuss it aimlessly for hours.= =20 > > Being prepared is what I'm hoping we can do here. >=20 > Ok, then I suggest simply adding ", don't bother about changes between > CVS log and ChangeLog" to both of your options. I guess I don't understand something here. If we aren't retroactively=20 changing existing ChangeLogs, and we're autogenerating things in the=20 future, where would these changes come from? --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com --6Vw0j8UKbyX0bfpA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk5Bb0kACgkQXVaO67S1rtviqACfb1v4MfKnJF9aVxEAlHlIwoMs E80AoPqr8Bv0ntTKutikgyQu6PXGXyBw =Whdd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6Vw0j8UKbyX0bfpA--