| 1 |
On 12:06 Sun 01 May , Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> So not only they are rather useless, and information you can easily get |
| 3 |
> from sources.gentoo.org, they take your time as well. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Then, let's change it to: |
| 6 |
<snip> |
| 7 |
"Every new file, and modification to existing file should have an entry |
| 8 |
in ChangeLog. Though not mandatory, it is highly recommended that file |
| 9 |
removals are also recorded the same way." |
| 10 |
</snip> |
| 11 |
to keep everyone happy until we deal with changelogs another way or |
| 12 |
improve the committing process. I suppose most removals happen together |
| 13 |
with additions, so it's not a big deal. |
| 14 |
When only a removal happens, it will be in the developer's decision how |
| 15 |
to handle the ChangeLog (as it was always). Don't get me wrong here. I |
| 16 |
believe that removals should be recorded. Searching in ChangeLogs for |
| 17 |
changes is much easier than visiting sources.gentoo.org, it's more |
| 18 |
formal and you have a complete history of your package. However, I can |
| 19 |
undestand what Samuli says, it can be frustrating and slow to deal with |
| 20 |
echangelog when there is a "big commit load". But again, Can it be |
| 21 |
slower than doing keywording/stabilizations? I don't remember any arch |
| 22 |
tester to have complained about that but we complain about removals? |
| 23 |
Maybe it's just my memory. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist ) |
| 27 |
( Gentoo Lisp Project ) |
Archives