Re: [gentoo-dev] On the usefulness of eclass changelog

[Samuli Suominen]

On 31/10/12 20:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote:
>> eclass/ handling should go to repoman and the automated ChangeLog process,
>> should be rather straight forward for knowing person.
>
> Perhaps, but right now the policy is to update it, so do it.  The
> policy is also to post eclass changes for review on -dev, so do that
> too.  That means do it BEFORE you commit it.  I don't care if you post
> it raw, or post a link to a file, or post a link to a proposed commit
> on your private little git branch, but don't commit it and then send
> out a link to the commit in production after the fact.
>
> This whole double-thread is ridiculous.  If somebody at work
> deliberately violated a dumb policy and pointed out it was dumb, the
> answer would be, "thanks, we'll look into changing the dumb policy,
> now pack up your desk to make room for the new employee who can
> benefit from the improved policy."
>
> If you don't like the rules feel free to whine, beg, and plead to QA,
> the council, $DIETY, or your mother, but follow the rules until
> they're changed.  There is always room for mistakes, but big projects
> don't work when everybody just does whatever they feel like doing.

I'd expect the file to be zeroed out after the repoman has been fixed to 
cover eclass/ as inconsistent ChangeLog equals useless ChangeLog

And indeed this is ridicilous as the claims of not following rules has 
not been even broken.
The eclass was sent to ML months ago already, and the conserns from back 
then have been counted in already for:

http://gentoo.2317880.n4.nabble.com/rfc-udev-rules-eclass-td45792.html

How many times are you required to do that before pushing it in? Last 
minute changes were made, yes, but this is no new news that it was 
coming in.

- Samuli