On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 18:08:17 Matt Turner wrote:
> There _was_ a policy before, but it was unclear about documenting
> version removals and arguably didn't require it, so after a few
> developers (you've been often mentioned as one of them) refused to
> document version removals in the changelog, even after prompting on
> gentoo-dev@ the council fixed the policy.

i'm aware of the history.  it still doesnt validate the logic cited earlier.

> Of course the policy doesn't exist simply because you disagree with
> others, the policy exists (and was instituted/clarified) because you
> wouldn't do something that most developers and users find useful and
> thought was already policy, even after being asked.
> 
> Why does this have to be such a struggle. It's pretty clear that the
> policy is going to be changed again to fix the oversight of silly
> situations like I mentioned previously, but there's a near unanimous
> agreement that documenting version removals _is_ useful. So, please,
> just start doing it. It's really not a lot of work. I'm sure something
> more can be done to make this more automated, but until then please
> just fucking do it and let's stop all this silliness.

seems we gauge things differently as i dont think it's that black & white, 
although it probably is further in your white than in my black.  further, i 
dont believe people actually get useful information out of this, they just 
think they do (perception vs reality).  when an actual bug arises, the 
information contained in the ChangeLog doesnt assist in the bug triage/fixing.  
depgraph broken -> file removed -> reason is irrelevant to the user.  
maintainer of the package causing the depgraph breakage gets a bug in bugzilla 
and they address it by either re-adding, or trimming more, or tweaking deps, 
or something else.  so if someone wants a fuzzy security blanket, they can 
look to autogeneration and then it's no longer my problem.
-mike