1 |
On Tue, 31 May 2011 15:33:22 +0200 |
2 |
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 31/05/11 15:28, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
5 |
> > On Tue, 31 May 2011 11:00:27 +0100 |
6 |
> > Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
9 |
> >> Hash: SHA512 |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> On 30/05/2011 12:39 μμ, Jeroen Roovers (jer) wrote: |
12 |
> >>> jer 11/05/30 11:39:21 |
13 |
> >>> |
14 |
> >>> Removed: acct.initd-r1 acct.logrotate-r1 |
15 |
> >>> Log: |
16 |
> >>> Move to stable since there was no functional difference anyway. |
17 |
> >>> |
18 |
> >>> (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha37/cvs/Linux x86_64) |
19 |
> >>> |
20 |
> >> |
21 |
> >> Hi Jer, |
22 |
> >> |
23 |
> >> I've noticed you did not update the ChangeLog in this commit. The |
24 |
> >> new policy[1] requires to update the ChangeLog on every commit no |
25 |
> >> matter how important or trivial it is. Please keep that in mind on |
26 |
> >> your future commits. |
27 |
> >> |
28 |
> >> Regards, |
29 |
> >> |
30 |
> >> [1]:http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > You are joking right? |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Nope, check out thread 'Council May Summary: Changes to ChangeLog |
35 |
> handling' (archives.g.o seems to be missing the whole thread). |
36 |
> |
37 |
|
38 |
So the ChangeLog should say: |
39 |
<date> <perpetrator> -files/somefile-r1: |
40 |
Remove files/somefile-r1. |
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
Right? This is getting ridiculous. |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
jer |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
PS: I am coming back from a busy extended weekend at work, people have |
50 |
been filing lots of bug reports (there's a wranglers' queue of more than |
51 |
a hundred now, most of which haven't been touched in days), version |
52 |
bumps, stabilisation requests for HPPA, a missing Gentoo developer to |
53 |
seek out and see if he's still OK, a private life to update if I still |
54 |
have one, and instead I get to answer this ridiculous nit picking crowd |
55 |
over yet another technical detail in this QA debacle? Nice. |