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