List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
Jeremy Olexa <email@example.com>
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/python-openid: python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild
Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:49:30 +0000
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:26:17 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> 2010-06-29 04:05:54 Jeremy Olexa napisał(a):
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:42:27 +0000 (UTC), "Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
>> Arahesis (arfrever)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > arfrever 10/06/28 19:42:27
>> > Modified: python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild
>> > Log:
>> > Fix dependencies.
>> > (Portage version: HEAD/cvs/Linux x86_64)
>> Is there any reason you are so non-verbose here? 'cvs log' or '$EDITOR
>> ChangeLog' equally give us no information about your commit. You are
>> making it hard on other devs in my opinion, I don't think intentionally,
>> but can't you just use the ChangeLog more??
> It was intermediate commit during my work on python-openid-2.2.5.ebuild.
> python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild has been mentioned in ChangeLog in final commit.
You are correct - 2.2.4 IS mentioned in the ChangeLog during the
subsequent commit. So you think it is ok to hide the first commit under
a ChangeLog entry of "Version bump" ? I don't see the logic. My issue
with this is that other devs (or users) still don't know how or why the
dependancies got in the 2.2.5 version or what deps were fixed.
In this case, I would have committed a new 2.2.5 version with the
ChangeLog entry of: "Version bump, fix python dependancies that are
incorrect in the old" or somthing like that. This way commit #1 is not
hidden and placed under a false entry of commit #2.