On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
> >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
> >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to
> >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't
> >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs
> >> about ChangeLogging removals.
> > 
> > how is this relevant at all ?  i dont find value in these entries, other
> > people do.  my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on
> > the policy towards creating it.
> 
> Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal
> Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations.
> 
> Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires
> changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting
> removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as
> well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version
> removals being useless.

that wasnt my point, although it is a good one.  the idea that policy exists 
because i disagree with others is bunk.  whether it be people complaining to 
other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still a 
policy XYZ.
-mike