Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/hachoir-parser: ChangeLog hachoir-parser-1.3.4.ebuild
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:52:45
Message-Id: pan.2010.09.11.23.51.57@cox.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/hachoir-parser: ChangeLog hachoir-parser-1.3.4.ebuild by "Petteri Räty"
Petteri Räty posted on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:18:32 +0300 as excerpted:

> On 09/11/2010 11:14 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:10:51 +0300 >> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: >> >>>> + >>>> +*hachoir-parser-1.3.4 (10 Sep 2010) >>>> + >>>> + 10 Sep 2010; Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis >>>> <arfrever@g.o> >>>> + -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild, +hachoir-parser-1.3.4.ebuild: >>>> + Version bump. >>>> >>> Deleting an older version is relevant so it should also be mentioned >>> in the ChangeLog message. >> >> It says -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild. What exactly do you think would >> be gained by adding "Remove old" in this case? >> > Following your logic we should not write "Version bump" either (as > that's what happens by default when you add a new ebuild).
You omitted the exception bit of the quote. Let me re-add it:
>> The only time it's really necessary IMO is when it's the only change >> you're making.
So if there's other logged changes, yeah, omit "Version bump" as well. It's redundant. But if it's the only change, by his logic, which as a regular changelog reader I agree with, either "Version bump" or "Remove old" should remain so there's at least some human entered message. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman