1 |
Daniel Armyr wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> | I don't think this is appropriate for -dev, but since you started it |
6 |
> | here, I'm going to comment. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Oh, so is this one of those "98% of the discussions held on -core are |
9 |
> not interesting"? |
10 |
|
11 |
Frankly, I found the signal->noise ratio to be quite |
12 |
unacceptable. The volume was way to high to be able to |
13 |
sensibly keep up with discussions. Too much stuff which |
14 |
belonged on other lists was discussed here instead of |
15 |
development. Also, I was concerned that this might not be |
16 |
appropriate to discuss here since the decision was made by |
17 |
my superiors and without any prior notice. I was worried |
18 |
that bringing this up here would be overstepping my bounds. |
19 |
However, I agree with Aron that community feedback would |
20 |
be useful. |
21 |
|
22 |
> |Why are you doing this? Sanctioned or not, |
23 |
> | the "old" way was never enforced, and not clearly stated as policy in |
24 |
> | the developer's handbook. Also, many prefer the new way. Let's |
25 |
> | consider this: |
26 |
> |
27 |
> What about |
28 |
> ~ |
29 |
> *************************************************************************** |
30 |
> ~ THIS IS IMPORTANT: The ChangeLog format is a *chronological* account |
31 |
> ~ of all changes made to a set of ebuilds. That means that the |
32 |
> most |
33 |
> recent ChangeLog entry *always* goes at the top of the file. More |
34 |
> ~ explanation below. |
35 |
> *************************************************************************** |
36 |
|
37 |
Well, it's hard to explain without some background. That |
38 |
change was only made recently (check the viewcvs history for |
39 |
that file). This debate has been ongoing for some time now. |
40 |
When I started, there was no official policy in the |
41 |
developer's and ebuild policy guides on the web site. To my |
42 |
knowledge, the only place that mentions it is still only the |
43 |
skel.ChangeLog. As was stated, it wasn't enforced and when |
44 |
I was trained, I was told to follow the format I found in |
45 |
current ebuilds. It just so happened that I followed the |
46 |
format of the Gnome ebuilds when I first started, thus I was |
47 |
led to believe that the "new" style was the correct way to |
48 |
do things. Later, I realized the other way, but I became |
49 |
convinced that the "new" style made more sense. Anyway, |
50 |
that's my take... |
51 |
|
52 |
> I normally wouldn't care, but since the topic was wildly discussed just |
53 |
> a few days ago and writing proper ChangeLogs was mentioned as a must. |
54 |
|
55 |
What defines "proper" ? Can you provide some arguments why |
56 |
the old style is more proper then the new style? Does it |
57 |
scale well? Which makes more sense in the short-term until |
58 |
a more permanent, extensible format can be developed? I'd |
59 |
like to hear your views on readability. Sure it isn't at |
60 |
all like the GNU sanctioned change log entries, but lets not |
61 |
do it just because it is the way the GNU people do it. |
62 |
Anyhow, comments are appreciated, and thanks for your feedback. |
63 |
|
64 |
Cheers, |
65 |
Nicholas |
66 |
|
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |