| 1 |
Nicholas, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I agree with all your reasons but I don't think I should revert this |
| 4 |
change without a general consensus. Here is what happened in the |
| 5 |
discussion a while ago, by my recollection: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
When I announced echangelog, lots of people liked it and also liked the |
| 8 |
new format. Dan Armak was concerned about consistency in the ChangeLogs |
| 9 |
so he asked Daniel Robbins about the sanctioned ChangeLog format. |
| 10 |
Daniel said that the old way was the right way. There was a flurry of |
| 11 |
continued discussion, a number of developers spoke up who felt one way |
| 12 |
or the other. In the end, there was no real decision except that Daniel |
| 13 |
did not recant his earlier statement. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
At the time, I had just finished putting some work into echangelog to |
| 16 |
make it use the new format, so I was hesitant to change the tool. Since |
| 17 |
then, the issue has come up a couple times on IRC that echangelog is |
| 18 |
still using the new format as opposed to the right format. For that |
| 19 |
reason, I finally made the change. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The code is still in echangelog; it's trivial to re-enable the new |
| 22 |
format. However I don't think it should change until the discussion has |
| 23 |
been re-awakened and Daniel has said okay. Generally we can arrive at |
| 24 |
decisions without Daniel's blessing, but since he effectively vetoed it |
| 25 |
last time, I think we need to use the old format unless he says |
| 26 |
differently. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regarding -core vs -dev, I think this is a fine discussion for -dev; |
| 29 |
there may be outside input that would be beneficial. After all, the |
| 30 |
last time we talked about it was on -core and the discussion died |
| 31 |
out. ;-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Aron |
Archives