| 1 |
El mié, 26-10-2011 a las 19:33 +0200, Bruno escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 26 October 2011 Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > However, this also allows to do all kinds of other actions to the |
| 4 |
> > ChangeLog file, without actually adding an entry for the current change |
| 5 |
> > being committed, as we've already seen in practice. |
| 6 |
> > The Council would like to remind developers that it is still a |
| 7 |
> > requirement that all actions are documented in the ChangeLog and that it |
| 8 |
> > is hence the responsibility of the committing developer to make sure |
| 9 |
> > this requirement is met. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Is there some guideline about old entries in the ChangeLog? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Over the past months ChangeLogs represent a big part of the tree, some |
| 14 |
> of them being pretty big and going back many changes (hundreds of them) |
| 15 |
> and years (even for actively maintained ebuilds). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> In order to not bloat the tree I would like to see old entries purged |
| 18 |
> when there are more than 25-50 of them, especially if they refer to |
| 19 |
> ebuilds gone since more than 3-6 months. |
| 20 |
> Someone in need for long gone ebuild would have to look at VCS anyhow, so |
| 21 |
> looking at ChangeLog/history over there would seem logical. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> On a compressed tree (squashfs) dropping all ChangeLogs reduces size from |
| 24 |
> ~55MiB to around 35MiB which is quite a lot! |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Bruno |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Personally, I want to have full ChangeLog easily accessible, I remember |
| 31 |
to need to look for really old entries when becoming a new maintainer |
| 32 |
for an old package previously maintained by others. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
What I don't know is the reasons for not compressing ChangeLogs by |
| 35 |
default (well, I don't have a compressed tree, this probably won't be a |
| 36 |
gain for people using it) |
Archives