| 1 |
On L, 2010-09-11 at 23:18 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/11/2010 11:14 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:10:51 +0300 |
| 4 |
> > Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >>> + |
| 7 |
> >>> +*hachoir-parser-1.3.4 (10 Sep 2010) |
| 8 |
> >>> + |
| 9 |
> >>> + 10 Sep 2010; Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever@g.o> |
| 10 |
> >>> + -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild, +hachoir-parser-1.3.4.ebuild: |
| 11 |
> >>> + Version bump. |
| 12 |
> >>> |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> Deleting an older version is relevant so it should also be mentioned in |
| 15 |
> >> the ChangeLog message. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > It says -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild. What exactly do you think would be |
| 18 |
> > gained by adding "Remove old" in this case? |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Following your logic we should not write "Version bump" either (as |
| 22 |
> that's what happens by default when you add a new ebuild). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That's why I tend to spend the time to briefly summarize what the |
| 25 |
version bump actually improves for users by upstream (see my gstreamer |
| 26 |
bumps for example). I spend the time once, thousands of users get the |
| 27 |
information handily with emerge --changelog and the like, without |
| 28 |
digging into /usr/share/doc/*/NEWS* _after_ upgrading and already having |
| 29 |
had to do the work to decide if its important upgrade for them or not |
| 30 |
(in case of conservative upgrading). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Mart Raudsepp |
Archives