Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: My masterplan for git migration (+ looking for infra to test it)

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 09/15/14 15:30, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:53:43AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 14-09-2014 16:56:24 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> napisał(a):
>>>> So, I don't really have a problem with your design.  I still question
>>>> whether we still need to be generating changelogs - they seem
>>>> incredibly redundant.  But, if people really want a redundant copy of
>>>> the git log, whatever...
>>> I don't want them too. However, I'm pretty sure people will bikeshed
>>> this to death if we kill them... Especially that rsync has no git log.
>>> Not that many users make real use of ChangeLogs, esp. considering
>>> how useless messages often are there...
>> Council had some discussions on this topic:
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111108-summary.txt
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111011-summary.txt
>>
>> Conclusion back then was that ChangeLog files need to stay.
> I would have no problem with the council revisiting/changing this.
>
> I tend to agree that the ChangeLogs in the portage tree will be
> obsoleted when we switch to git because git's logging facilities are
> much easier to use than those in CVS. Not to mention how much smaller
> the portage tree would be without ChangeLogs.
>
> William
>

If the argument is that there are no Changelogs in rsync, then let's 
write git hooks to generate them when the repository is mirrored to the 
rsync host.  The only problem I see is with this is then adding 
ChangeLog to the manifest and gpg signing it which has to be done at the 
developer's side.  But, I think the tree that users get from rsync 
should have the logs.  Having *both* a ChangeLog file and git log is 
redundant.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@g.o
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA