Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:33:19
Message-Id: 20110809173257.GE25611@comet.mayo.edu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request) by Fabian Groffen
On 20:33 Wed 03 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 03-08-2011 11:09:07 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > > 1. Include all commits, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog > > > > messages > > > > > > > > 2. Allow commit filtering, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog > > > > messages > > > > > > > > - Filters to allow: keywording, stabilization, removal of ebuilds. > > > > Whoever implements the code can decide on the format of said filters. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do any council members feel strongly that we should include additional > > > > options, or is it good enough to just make a choice on these two? > > > > > > I listed the questions I think are relevant at the bottom of my mail. I > > > feel you forgot the most important one: should ChangeLogs be > > > auto-generated at all?. Only if yes, > > > > Yeah, that's already on my draft agenda [1]. =) But we should still have > > a small set of options to choose from if we do vote to automate, so we > > don't sit around for another month or discuss it aimlessly for hours. > > Being prepared is what I'm hoping we can do here. > > Ok, then I suggest simply adding ", don't bother about changes between > CVS log and ChangeLog" to both of your options.
I guess I don't understand something here. If we aren't retroactively changing existing ChangeLogs, and we're autogenerating things in the future, where would these changes come from? -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com

Replies