| 1 |
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:26:17 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |
| 2 |
<Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> 2010-06-29 04:05:54 Jeremy Olexa napisał(a): |
| 4 |
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:42:27 +0000 (UTC), "Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar |
| 5 |
>> Arahesis (arfrever)" <arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > arfrever 10/06/28 19:42:27 |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > Modified: python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild |
| 9 |
>> > Log: |
| 10 |
>> > Fix dependencies. |
| 11 |
>> > (Portage version: HEAD/cvs/Linux x86_64) |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Is there any reason you are so non-verbose here? 'cvs log' or '$EDITOR |
| 14 |
>> ChangeLog' equally give us no information about your commit. You are |
| 15 |
>> making it hard on other devs in my opinion, I don't think intentionally, |
| 16 |
>> but can't you just use the ChangeLog more?? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It was intermediate commit during my work on python-openid-2.2.5.ebuild. |
| 19 |
> python-openid-2.2.4.ebuild has been mentioned in ChangeLog in final commit. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You are correct - 2.2.4 IS mentioned in the ChangeLog during the |
| 22 |
subsequent commit. So you think it is ok to hide the first commit under |
| 23 |
a ChangeLog entry of "Version bump" ? I don't see the logic. My issue |
| 24 |
with this is that other devs (or users) still don't know how or why the |
| 25 |
dependancies got in the 2.2.5 version or what deps were fixed. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In this case, I would have committed a new 2.2.5 version with the |
| 28 |
ChangeLog entry of: "Version bump, fix python dependancies that are |
| 29 |
incorrect in the old" or somthing like that. This way commit #1 is not |
| 30 |
hidden and placed under a false entry of commit #2. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-Jeremy |
Archives