| 1 |
El mié, 26-10-2011 a las 19:15 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 26-10-2011 19:11:24 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:06:07 +0200 |
| 4 |
> > Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > > > 3) one step towards preventing useless ChangeLog entries. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Also this has been discussed and decided upon by the current and |
| 9 |
> > > previous Councils, so also that opinion is unlikely to suddenly |
| 10 |
> > > change. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I meant the useless ChangeLog messages done by developers on purpose |
| 13 |
> > like 'ignore this'. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Oh, you can just edit them, and "fix" the ChangeLog. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I hope people will keep on looking for those, and contact the developer |
| 18 |
> in question to ask him/her to change his/her behaviour. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Why don't we try to reach a consensus? Maybe we should be allowed to |
| 23 |
simply run echangelog (or whatever is used) to generate a message like: |
| 24 |
26 Oct 2011; Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> -pangomm-2.26.3.ebuild |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
And simply that |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Pros: |
| 29 |
- People refusing to add a message saying "Drop old" (or similar) could |
| 30 |
be happy with this, as no redundant information is required to be |
| 31 |
written in ChangeLog. |
| 32 |
- Users will still see that a package was removed, as it's indicated |
| 33 |
with "-" previous removed file. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
What do you think? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
From my point of view, if we don't try to reach a consensus, we will |
| 38 |
expend time on things to enforce a policy that we could probably expend |
| 39 |
on other tasks and, then, maybe all of us should try to stop being so |
| 40 |
strict and try to give in a bit (not sure if it's the way in English to |
| 41 |
say "ceder" :S) |
Archives