On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 07:37:26PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-09-2011 17:08:01 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Council decided to push back to ML the remaining bullet point about
> > ChangeLog generation[1]
> 
> I propose that the council reconsiders their answers to all of the
> questions, in particular the most important one "do we want ChangeLogs
> to be auto-generated".
> 
> I propose instead that the council votes on NOT auto-generating
> ChangeLogs, but instead asks the Portage team to implement updating the
> ChangeLog file as part of repoman commit when there are files modified
> (includes removal) excluding the ChangeLog file itself.
> 
> This solves most problems raised by council members, as well as others on
> the various threads on this topic.
> - The file can be edited (council intentional vote)
> - All existing information is retained (council vote)
> - Repoman updates ChangeLog so no filtering voodoo (council vote)
> - Works with AnyVCS and branches*
> - Needs no changes regarding Manifests, since ChangeLog is just in
>   AnyVCS, known to repoman during commit
> 
> 
> * assuming the merger either uses plain commit before finally merging
>   the changes to the final tree (and committing with repoman commit
>   ther), or the merger simply resolves the conflict by discarding
>   changelog changes and performing final repoman commit with a full message
> 
> -- 
> Fabian Groffen
> Gentoo on a different level

This seems to be the most reasonable suggestion so far. It would still allow
for corrections to be made to the ChangeLogs, if such corrections really are
necessary.

The only stumbling block would be a way to allow for atomic commits that won't
include a list of every package touched for the commit. But, I'm sure this is
minor. Then again, maybe I'm bringing up something that is neither here nor
there.

-- 
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson
Pseudonym: TitanOfOld
Gentoo Developer