| 1 |
On Sunday 27 April 2003 06:12 pm, Nicholas Wourms wrote: |
| 2 |
> Old Way: |
| 3 |
> Changes were spread all willy-nilly over the Changelog in |
| 4 |
> chronological order. There was no organization other then |
| 5 |
... |
| 6 |
> New Way: |
| 7 |
> Changes are still in chronological order, but they are |
| 8 |
> indexed under each specific ebuild preceded by the star. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
When sorting log entries you can either sort by ebuild name first then |
| 11 |
timestamp, or sort by timestamp first then ebuild name; neither is any more |
| 12 |
or less organized than the other. But obviously certain questions are |
| 13 |
answered most readily when the entries are sorted (name, timestamp), and |
| 14 |
other questions are answered more readily when the entries are sorted |
| 15 |
(timestamp, name). Maybe developers ask more questions where (name, |
| 16 |
timestamp) is most convenient, but I'm not sure (timestamp, name) isn't more |
| 17 |
convenient for users. So I doubt the issue is cut-and-dry. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In any case, it's quite easy to convert one sorting into the other in |
| 20 |
software, so probably the best course of action is to extend echangelog (or |
| 21 |
create another utility, since users would probably use it) which can output |
| 22 |
whichever form isn't decided upon as the default. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> > 1. echangelog now follows the older, sanctioned format for the |
| 25 |
> > ChangeLog. This means that all new entries are added at the top. A |
| 26 |
> > new version or revision will cause a new *version string. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I don't think this is appropriate for -dev |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Whyever not? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Evan |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives