Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/python-openid: python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:43:12
Message-Id: 4c3504702d1ba64aa4c6fe1a6f265cc2@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/python-openid: python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:26:17 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
<Arfrever@g.o> wrote:
> 2010-06-29 04:05:54 Jeremy Olexa napisaƂ(a): >> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:42:27 +0000 (UTC), "Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar >> Arahesis (arfrever)" <arfrever@g.o> wrote: >> > arfrever 10/06/28 19:42:27 >> > >> > Modified: python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild >> > Log: >> > Fix dependencies. >> > (Portage version: HEAD/cvs/Linux x86_64) >> >> Is there any reason you are so non-verbose here? 'cvs log' or '$EDITOR >> ChangeLog' equally give us no information about your commit. You are >> making it hard on other devs in my opinion, I don't think intentionally, >> but can't you just use the ChangeLog more?? > > It was intermediate commit during my work on python-openid-2.2.5.ebuild. > python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild has been mentioned in ChangeLog in final commit.
You are correct - 2.2.4 IS mentioned in the ChangeLog during the subsequent commit. So you think it is ok to hide the first commit under a ChangeLog entry of "Version bump" ? I don't see the logic. My issue with this is that other devs (or users) still don't know how or why the dependancies got in the 2.2.5 version or what deps were fixed. In this case, I would have committed a new 2.2.5 version with the ChangeLog entry of: "Version bump, fix python dependancies that are incorrect in the old" or somthing like that. This way commit #1 is not hidden and placed under a false entry of commit #2. -Jeremy