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.

> You and I both know that a removal can (and sometimes does) cause breakage.
> These kinds of changes are things that your fellow devs (as well as many
> users) would like to see in ChangeLogs. I do *not* think that this is an
> unreasonable request. I find it to be a little.. inconsiderate I guess, when
> any developer fails to heed a reasonable request from another developer or
> user. I know I personally try to accommodate people if they ask me to do
> something slightly differently to make their lives easier. Why is it that
> you can't do that? Is running echangelog (or hell, scripting something) for
> a removal really that hard or undesirable? Can you really not spare the
> extra 10 seconds? I mean, come on.

if you want useless information, then automate it.  there's no reason at all 
to not do so.  i prefer to keep useful information in the changelogs of 
packages i maintain without cluttering up with noise.
-mike