| 1 |
Petteri Räty posted on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:18:32 +0300 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 09/11/2010 11:14 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:10:51 +0300 |
| 5 |
>> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>>> + |
| 8 |
>>>> +*hachoir-parser-1.3.4 (10 Sep 2010) |
| 9 |
>>>> + |
| 10 |
>>>> + 10 Sep 2010; Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |
| 11 |
>>>> <arfrever@g.o> |
| 12 |
>>>> + -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild, +hachoir-parser-1.3.4.ebuild: |
| 13 |
>>>> + Version bump. |
| 14 |
>>>> |
| 15 |
>>> Deleting an older version is relevant so it should also be mentioned |
| 16 |
>>> in the ChangeLog message. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> It says -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild. What exactly do you think would |
| 19 |
>> be gained by adding "Remove old" in this case? |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> Following your logic we should not write "Version bump" either (as |
| 22 |
> that's what happens by default when you add a new ebuild). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You omitted the exception bit of the quote. Let me re-add it: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
>> The only time it's really necessary IMO is when it's the only change |
| 27 |
>> you're making. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
So if there's other logged changes, yeah, omit "Version bump" as well. |
| 30 |
It's redundant. But if it's the only change, by his logic, which as a |
| 31 |
regular changelog reader I agree with, either "Version bump" or "Remove |
| 32 |
old" should remain so there's at least some human entered message. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 36 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 37 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives