Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal
>> Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations.
>>
>> Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires
>> changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting
>> removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as
>> well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version
>> removals being useless.
>
> that wasnt my point, although it is a good one.  the idea that policy exists
> because i disagree with others is bunk.  whether it be people complaining to
> other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still a
> policy XYZ.
> -mike

There _was_ a policy before, but it was unclear about documenting
version removals and arguably didn't require it, so after a few
developers (you've been often mentioned as one of them) refused to
document version removals in the changelog, even after prompting on
gentoo-dev@ the council fixed the policy.

Of course the policy doesn't exist simply because you disagree with
others, the policy exists (and was instituted/clarified) because you
wouldn't do something that most developers and users find useful and
thought was already policy, even after being asked.

Why does this have to be such a struggle. It's pretty clear that the
policy is going to be changed again to fix the oversight of silly
situations like I mentioned previously, but there's a near unanimous
agreement that documenting version removals _is_ useful. So, please,
just start doing it. It's really not a lot of work. I'm sure something
more can be done to make this more automated, but until then please
just fucking do it and let's stop all this silliness.

Matt