Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:48:36
Message-Id: 201106071747.19914.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild by Matt Turner
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: > >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco > >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's > >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to > >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't > >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs > >> about ChangeLogging removals. > > > > how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other > > people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on > > the policy towards creating it. > > Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal > Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations. > > Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires > changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting > removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as > well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version > removals being useless.
that wasnt my point, although it is a good one. the idea that policy exists because i disagree with others is bunk. whether it be people complaining to other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still a policy XYZ. -mike

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies