| 1 |
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: |
| 2 |
> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco |
| 3 |
> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's |
| 4 |
> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to |
| 5 |
> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't |
| 6 |
> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs |
| 7 |
> about ChangeLogging removals. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other |
| 10 |
people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on the |
| 11 |
policy towards creating it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> You and I both know that a removal can (and sometimes does) cause breakage. |
| 14 |
> These kinds of changes are things that your fellow devs (as well as many |
| 15 |
> users) would like to see in ChangeLogs. I do *not* think that this is an |
| 16 |
> unreasonable request. I find it to be a little.. inconsiderate I guess, when |
| 17 |
> any developer fails to heed a reasonable request from another developer or |
| 18 |
> user. I know I personally try to accommodate people if they ask me to do |
| 19 |
> something slightly differently to make their lives easier. Why is it that |
| 20 |
> you can't do that? Is running echangelog (or hell, scripting something) for |
| 21 |
> a removal really that hard or undesirable? Can you really not spare the |
| 22 |
> extra 10 seconds? I mean, come on. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
if you want useless information, then automate it. there's no reason at all |
| 25 |
to not do so. i prefer to keep useful information in the changelogs of |
| 26 |
packages i maintain without cluttering up with noise. |
| 27 |
-mike |
Archives