Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal of CVS headers

[Lars Wendler]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 23:30:25 +0100 Michał Górny wrote:

>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?

Wow, getting that from the perhaps most rude dev with the least
amount of social skills we might have currently...
Everytime I think you can't do worse you prove me wrong...

>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?

Nice conspiracy plot... here, have a tin hat.

>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.
>

No real need to do that expansion for everybody. Just keep the $Id$
header field for those who want to make use of git's ident attribute
feature.

-- 
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93  9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39

Attention! New gpg key! See
https://www.gentoofan.org/blog/index.php?/archives/9-New-gpg-keys.html