Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:33:35
Message-Id: 20110803183304.GP20656@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request) by Donnie Berkholz
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. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level

Replies