1 |
On 03-08-2011 10:43:10 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> On 22:16 Mon 01 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: |
3 |
> > Auto generation of ChangeLogs, implies changes, and also influences |
4 |
> > how current ChangeLog information is to be handled. What if |
5 |
> > auto-generation is done, what does it take? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> For the purposes of a council meeting, I think we should construct a |
8 |
> small set of specific proposals to choose from so we don't get mired in |
9 |
> endless discussions during the meeting. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I'd like to offer a couple of them for us to choose between. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> 1. Include all commits, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog |
14 |
> messages |
15 |
> |
16 |
> 2. Allow commit filtering, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog |
17 |
> messages |
18 |
> |
19 |
> - Filters to allow: keywording, stabilization, removal of ebuilds. |
20 |
> Whoever implements the code can decide on the format of said filters. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Do any council members feel strongly that we should include additional |
24 |
> options, or is it good enough to just make a choice on these two? |
25 |
|
26 |
I listed the questions I think are relevant at the bottom of my mail. I |
27 |
feel you forgot the most important one: should ChangeLogs be |
28 |
auto-generated at all?. Only if yes, |
29 |
- should all commit messages be included (sort of first part of your 1 |
30 |
and 2) |
31 |
- should commit messages be appended to/updated? (sort of last part of |
32 |
your 1 and 2) |
33 |
- should existing information in ChangeLog files be retained? |
34 |
|
35 |
I have the impression that any detail on how and what can only be dealt |
36 |
with after it is clear what the majority of the council members lean |
37 |
towards. E.g. useless to list and discuss a big variety of filters if |
38 |
there is no support for allowing them at all. |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Fabian Groffen |
43 |
Gentoo on a different level |