| 1 |
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco |
| 5 |
> >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's |
| 6 |
> >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to |
| 7 |
> >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't |
| 8 |
> >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs |
| 9 |
> >> about ChangeLogging removals. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other |
| 12 |
> > people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on |
| 13 |
> > the policy towards creating it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal |
| 16 |
> Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires |
| 19 |
> changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting |
| 20 |
> removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as |
| 21 |
> well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version |
| 22 |
> removals being useless. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
that wasnt my point, although it is a good one. the idea that policy exists |
| 25 |
because i disagree with others is bunk. whether it be people complaining to |
| 26 |
other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still a |
| 27 |
policy XYZ. |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives