| 1 |
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:50:01AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I don't get why someone would want to edit ChangeLogs. Could you list |
| 4 |
>> some use-cases besides editing of typos? |
| 5 |
> One that I have seen before was the change of a URL for users to migrate |
| 6 |
> their data, when upstream changed the URL. The URL in question was in |
| 7 |
> the ebuild and the changelog. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is not a case for editing of ChangeLogs. I see three standard |
| 11 |
ways for this information to be conveyed, in decreasing order of |
| 12 |
likelihood of the user reading it: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
(1) A Gentoo news file |
| 15 |
(2) The ebuild itself via elog/ewarn |
| 16 |
(3) The ChangeLog entry which changed the URL in the ebuild |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In any case, ChangeLogs have always been historical records of the |
| 19 |
changes that occurred in a package. What people seem to want is a |
| 20 |
hybrid of ChangeLogs and NEWS files. I don't see how the costs of this |
| 21 |
(inevitable merge conflicts, duplicated information, increased git |
| 22 |
tree size) outweigh the benefits (the rare user who looks at the |
| 23 |
ChangeLog but not the ebuild). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |
Archives