| 1 |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: |
| 3 |
>> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco |
| 4 |
>> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's |
| 5 |
>> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to |
| 6 |
>> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't |
| 7 |
>> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs |
| 8 |
>> about ChangeLogging removals. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other |
| 11 |
> people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on the |
| 12 |
> policy towards creating it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal |
| 15 |
Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires |
| 18 |
changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting |
| 19 |
removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as |
| 20 |
well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version |
| 21 |
removals being useless. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Matt |
Archives