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 1RJAZ7-0000DU-5O for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:59:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6548221C050; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:58:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amun.cheops.ods.org (amun.cheops.ods.org [83.161.135.166]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB6D21C032; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:58:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nut.cheops.ods.org ([2001:888:1022:0:ca2a:14ff:fe35:7a00] helo=gentoo.org) by amun.cheops.ods.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RJAYf-0008FS-RK; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:58:47 +0200 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:58:43 +0200 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08 Message-ID: <20111026205843.GH843@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20111026163025.GA843@gentoo.org> <20111026183551.32cfffe8@pomiocik.lan> <20111026163724.GB843@gentoo.org> <20111026184927.255ed3bb@pomiocik.lan> <20111026170607.GF843@gentoo.org> <20111026191124.411c1f00@pomiocik.lan> <20111026171554.GG843@gentoo.org> <1319652305.5300.7.camel@belkin4> 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="Ijzeh677kh28wBBZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1319652305.5300.7.camel@belkin4> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (Darwin 11.2.0, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.3) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. X-Content-Scanned: by amun.cheops.ods.org (Exim Exiscan) using SpamAssassin and ClamAV X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: d44cb2fa283a169a97f056767a9164cb --Ijzeh677kh28wBBZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 26-10-2011 20:05:05 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Why don't we try to reach a consensus? Maybe we should be allowed to > simply run echangelog (or whatever is used) to generate a message like: > 26 Oct 2011; Pacho Ramos -pangomm-2.26.3.ebuild >=20 > And simply that >=20 > Pros: > - People refusing to add a message saying "Drop old" (or similar) could > be happy with this, as no redundant information is required to be > written in ChangeLog.=20 > - Users will still see that a package was removed, as it's indicated > with "-" previous removed file. >=20 > What do you think? You can see it has been removed, but you typically want to know why. That's the idea of the ChangeLog file. Compare: old remove for security bug ... [this is a placeholder, please ignore] ^ Version bump Remove superseeded versions Drop due to dep on