Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal of CVS headers

[Michał Górny]

W dniu 26.02.2017, nie o godzinie 21∶16 +0100, użytkownik Lars Wendler
napisał:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:59:19 +0000 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 03:05:09PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > As the council has decided in its 2014-10-14 meeting (and confirmed
> > > again in the 2016-11-13 meeting), CVS headers should be removed after
> > > the migration to Git.
> >
> > The 2014-10-14 meeting did NOT specify what CVS headers were in
> > question, and it was later decided that this was $Header$, not $Id$.
> >
> > > Until recently, this was blocked by repoman still checking for the
> > > $Id$ line. The latter is now fixed in the stable repoman version.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I am going to remove the remaining CVS headers throughout
> > > the tree (except for patches, of course) in two days from now.
> >
> > This was also discussed in August 2015:
> > Subject: 'Infra plans regarding $Id$ - official answer...'
> > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/d01ce943a9f9404c454c26bdb7efdf0e
> >
> > $Id$ is used by Git as well, and I was a strong advocate that expansion
> > of $Id$ should be ENABLED in the rsync exports, because it allowed
> > tracing what version of a file was actually in use.
> >
> > In the case of Git, $Id$ expands to the blob hash, which can be traced
> > to a commit trivially, and several of the council members in the 2015
> > thread did agree it was useful in that format (but I see no formal vote
> > was ever taken).
> >
>
> And that's exactly for what I use the $Id$ header.
> I am completely against removal of this header line. It does _not_ do
> any harm and I don't understand why people want it to be removed so
> badly.
> Now QA again wants to do a questionable action _without_ any approval
> from neither infra nor council. Sorry guys but this is not how things
> work. The official answer from infra regarding $Id$ gives enough good
> examples why this header line should be kept.
> This $Id$ header line is the only way how I can safely keep official
> ebuilds and ebuilds from my overlay in sync. I don't like getting my
> workflows sabotaged and I consider this a pure act of sabotage...
>
> How about QA finally starts acting on useful issues or at least do
> actions that make sense?

How about you give some respect to your fellow developers who simply try
to do stuff to improve Gentoo, instead of attributing malice and taking
it as personal attack on you?

As far as I'm concerned, we could tell as well that the Council decided
on header removal, then Infra went rogue and replaced the header with
another one, and now it claims that the decision was about $Header$
and not $Id$. Does that sound nice to you? Does it motivate you to work
more on Gentoo?

Of course, we can dispute that Infra might one day actually start
expanding $Id$. And not break random files in the process. And not break
Manifest thickening and signing in the process.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny