| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm a user, and despite the fact that I tend to run ~arch or even pre-tree |
| 3 |
> testing overlays, I find ebuild removal information in the changelog WAY |
| 4 |
> more useful than, say, when some obscure arch keyworded a version. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Ergo, the argument that users don't find that info useful is disproven. |
| 7 |
> Users DO find it useful. I /as/ a user find it useful and get rather |
| 8 |
> annoyed when I'm trying to trace a change and there's no entry at all for |
| 9 |
> it in the changelog! |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So, please /do/ make ebuild removal entries in the changelog, as users |
| 12 |
> /do/ find them useful. =:^) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm a user, tho a lowly one, and even I look in the changelogs from time |
| 17 |
to time. I don't even see why this should be discussed. If you |
| 18 |
*change* something, but it in the *change* log. If not, maybe the |
| 19 |
changelog should be called something else. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Using the logic that something being removed is not a change, then |
| 22 |
adding something is a change either. Adding something is important and |
| 23 |
I think something being removed is important too. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Dale |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
:-) :-) |
Archives