Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:08:17 -0400
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


Replies:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
-- Mike Frysinger
References:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
-- Matt Turner
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
-- Mike Frysinger
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
Next by thread:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
Previous by date:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
Next by date:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-arch/bzip2: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.