| 1 |
Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:54:24 +0300 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 09/06/2011 11:31 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 06-09-2011 20:24:54 +0000, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Modified: ChangeLog |
| 6 |
>>> Removed: libffi-3.0.10_rc8.ebuild libffi-3.0.9.ebuild Log: |
| 7 |
>>> [This is a placeholder. Please ignore.] |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
>> Please change your script to write something less useless. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Sincerely, I find this message about the ChangeLog entry as annoying you |
| 12 |
> must find the entry itself and I find the placeholder message to be more |
| 13 |
> appropiate for the item that should not have an entry in the first |
| 14 |
> place. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> (Consider my refusal to reply any more messages in this thread as an |
| 17 |
> polite attempt of avoiding escalation and flame.) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
FWIW as someone who actually uses changlog file removal info |
| 20 |
occasionally, at least this entry shows which files were removed, and |
| 21 |
when. Why (simply "Old" or "Remove old" doesn't really provide more info |
| 22 |
tho it would look nicer) would be nice, but at least the critical bit, |
| 23 |
the versions removed and the date, are there. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So IMO, this is a reasonable compromise. Those who feel the need can |
| 26 |
make their protest statements, but the needed info remains available for |
| 27 |
those who will find it useful. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Besides which, as a practical matter it'd be difficult to enforce more, |
| 30 |
unless the council wants to approve and enforce a specific message for |
| 31 |
such cases, and I imagine everybody will agree _that_ would be "a bridge |
| 32 |
too far". |
| 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