| 1 |
Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 2 |
> I just updated gentoolkit to version 0.1.21. This version includes two |
| 3 |
> changes: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1. echangelog now follows the older, sanctioned format for the |
| 6 |
> ChangeLog. This means that all new entries are added at the top. A |
| 7 |
> new version or revision will cause a new *version string. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I don't think this is appropriate for -dev, but since you |
| 10 |
started it here, I'm going to comment. Why are you doing |
| 11 |
this? Sanctioned or not, the "old" way was never enforced, |
| 12 |
and not clearly stated as policy in the developer's |
| 13 |
handbook. Also, many prefer the new way. Let's consider this: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Old Way: |
| 16 |
Changes were spread all willy-nilly over the Changelog in |
| 17 |
chronological order. There was no organization other then |
| 18 |
that, so it was often difficult to isolate which specific |
| 19 |
revision was changed at a glance and when. This, obviously, |
| 20 |
doesn't scale well when we start getting changelogs with |
| 21 |
100+ entries |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
New Way: |
| 24 |
Changes are still in chronological order, but they are |
| 25 |
indexed under each specific ebuild preceded by the star. |
| 26 |
that means, if I want to know what's changed to what |
| 27 |
version, I can quickly scan the *'ed entries for the |
| 28 |
revision I want and there you go. As for finding out |
| 29 |
overall what's changed in the last few days, that is also |
| 30 |
just as easy as before. I'd merely scan the the top portion |
| 31 |
of each revision. This method scales much better and keeps |
| 32 |
Changelog entries neat and orderly, even when faced with |
| 33 |
100+ entries. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
So, for the time being, can we put echangelog back to the |
| 36 |
way it was until this is further discussed? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Comments welcomed. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Cheers, |
| 41 |
Nicholas |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives