| 1 |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/07/2011 10:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@g.o> said: |
| 5 |
>>>> vapier 11/05/16 03:30:02 |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> Removed: bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild |
| 8 |
>>>> Log: |
| 9 |
>>>> old |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> waste of time. i simply wont bother removing old versions until changelogs |
| 14 |
>> start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> +1, see: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097#c75 |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> and I have to say it's all on councils shoulders how bad of an impact |
| 19 |
> this will have on the tree with several devs leaving old files around or |
| 20 |
> leaving trivial fixes uncommitted to workaround bad policy. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
To avoid cluttering that bug report more, I'll respond here. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It seems like the obvious answer is yes. The devrel resolution simply |
| 25 |
says that you can have commit access back after promising to follow |
| 26 |
the policy, and I can't see any way you wouldn't be following the |
| 27 |
policy by not making commits where you'd have otherwise left the |
| 28 |
changelog untouched. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Matt |
Archives