| 1 |
Nathan Phillip Brink posted on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:30:21 -0400 as |
| 2 |
excerpted: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:15:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On 01/06/2011 04:08 ????, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > ?? ??????, 30/05/2011 ?? 14:55 -0700, Brian Harring ??????????: |
| 7 |
>> >> The problem is, that's a *fuzzy* definition. |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > Ok, let's start with something and then we'll add more items if |
| 10 |
>> > required. Currently I'd like to propose following text: |
| 11 |
>> > |
| 12 |
>> > The ChangeLog must be updated with each commit. The only possible |
| 13 |
>> > relaxations for this rule are: |
| 14 |
>> > |
| 15 |
>> > 1. Nonfunctional whitespace changes |
| 16 |
>> > 2. Changes in comments (lines starting with # in ebuild, |
| 17 |
>> > or leading text in patches) |
| 18 |
>> > 3. Manifest updates |
| 19 |
>> > 4. Changes in ChageLog itself ;) |
| 20 |
>> > |
| 21 |
>> > Something unclear? Anything else? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I think these are reasonable. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Agreed with one exception: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Under #2, changes in comment lines, please be specific that commenting a |
| 28 |
previously uncommented line is NOT a simple comment change and thus not a |
| 29 |
valid reason to apply this exception. Otherwise we'll (unfortunately) |
| 30 |
likely be having round #3 of the debate over someone arguing that |
| 31 |
commenting an epatch line is simply changing a comment... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Perhaps (tho better wording is likely possible): |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
2. Changes in comments (lines starting with # in ebuild, |
| 36 |
or leading text in patches, except that...) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
2a. Commenting an existing line is considered more than |
| 39 |
a comment change and thus must be changelogged. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
>> Maybe typos in e{log,warn,info} messages and/or typos in general |
| 42 |
>> ( variables, functions etc ) |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> But typos in variables and functions (which in most cases _imply_ |
| 45 |
> functional changes) are generally bugs which should be mentioned in the |
| 46 |
> ChangeLog. Typos in informational messages (e{log,warn,info}) might also |
| 47 |
> affect the user and thus be `functional' indirectly. I think that the |
| 48 |
> 4-item list is complete enough ;-). |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Exactly. Plus... |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
The current "every change" policy goes overboard, I doubt anyone |
| 53 |
disagrees, but it's worth repeating the point someone else made already, |
| 54 |
every added exception makes the rule harder to remember. The four |
| 55 |
numbered exceptions (plus my proposed exception to the exception) above |
| 56 |
are IMO a reasonable compromise between practicality and simplicity, but |
| 57 |
getting much more complicated than that and... IMO it's better to stay |
| 58 |
simple. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
And in practice I believe it's impossible to define typos to the level it |
| 61 |
unfortunately appears is now necessary, without either leaving holes big |
| 62 |
enough to fly a jumbo-jet thru which no doubt someone will then attempt, |
| 63 |
or complicating the rule beyond the point of simple effectiveness. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 67 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 68 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives