| 1 |
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:06 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Why not just get rid of the in-tree Changelogs entirely? The scm logs |
| 3 |
> already document this information, so why have it in a file? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> It seems like the main purpose for it is for end-users to have some idea |
| 6 |
> what changed in an ebuild. However, in my experience the upstream |
| 7 |
> changes are far more impactful than the ebuild changes, and those aren't |
| 8 |
> in the Changelogs at all. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I pretty much always use the -l option of portage to include the |
| 11 |
pertinent changes in the ChangeLog, because this is the only way to know |
| 12 |
about any changes before the package is merged. Yes, the NEWS from the |
| 13 |
package usually contains a lot more detail, but I won't be able to read |
| 14 |
it until after the fact. In my experience plenty of ChangeLogs in our |
| 15 |
tree at least briefly document what changed in the package as opposed to |
| 16 |
the ebuild. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Hans |
Archives