1 |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
>> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: |
5 |
>> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco |
6 |
>> >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's |
7 |
>> >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to |
8 |
>> >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't |
9 |
>> >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs |
10 |
>> >> about ChangeLogging removals. |
11 |
>> > |
12 |
>> > how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other |
13 |
>> > people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on |
14 |
>> > the policy towards creating it. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal |
17 |
>> Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires |
20 |
>> changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting |
21 |
>> removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as |
22 |
>> well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version |
23 |
>> removals being useless. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> that wasnt my point, although it is a good one. the idea that policy exists |
26 |
> because i disagree with others is bunk. whether it be people complaining to |
27 |
> other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still a |
28 |
> policy XYZ. |
29 |
> -mike |
30 |
|
31 |
There _was_ a policy before, but it was unclear about documenting |
32 |
version removals and arguably didn't require it, so after a few |
33 |
developers (you've been often mentioned as one of them) refused to |
34 |
document version removals in the changelog, even after prompting on |
35 |
gentoo-dev@ the council fixed the policy. |
36 |
|
37 |
Of course the policy doesn't exist simply because you disagree with |
38 |
others, the policy exists (and was instituted/clarified) because you |
39 |
wouldn't do something that most developers and users find useful and |
40 |
thought was already policy, even after being asked. |
41 |
|
42 |
Why does this have to be such a struggle. It's pretty clear that the |
43 |
policy is going to be changed again to fix the oversight of silly |
44 |
situations like I mentioned previously, but there's a near unanimous |
45 |
agreement that documenting version removals _is_ useful. So, please, |
46 |
just start doing it. It's really not a lot of work. I'm sure something |
47 |
more can be done to make this more automated, but until then please |
48 |
just fucking do it and let's stop all this silliness. |
49 |
|
50 |
Matt |