1 |
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 04:03:42PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote: |
2 |
> В Птн, 20/05/2011 в 13:19 +0300, Mart Raudsepp пишет: |
3 |
> > On T, 2011-05-17 at 13:32 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: |
4 |
> > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110510-summary.txt |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > > Please note that you must now update ChangeLog with each commit. For |
7 |
> > > more information please see the meeting log and the preceding mailing |
8 |
> > > list thread: |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110510.txt |
11 |
> > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_eaefa325b31360324d0fe53d0b9071e6.xml |
12 |
> |
13 |
> So, I just realized that we have to update Changelogs for everything, |
14 |
> whitespaces and comments included. Even after reading meeting logs I |
15 |
> still wonder, why council have decided to vote policy change that was |
16 |
> not supported even by minority of developers? |
17 |
|
18 |
The majority support changelog maintenance for non-trivial changes; |
19 |
meaning removals, additions, eclass/eapi changes, changing logic, |
20 |
fixing build issues, etc. That's not really arguable, and for those |
21 |
who don't support it- they're bluntly, wrong, the ChangeLog isn't for |
22 |
devs (we have vcs logs after all)- it's for users, and that's the sort |
23 |
of thing they need to see. |
24 |
|
25 |
The problem is, that's a *fuzzy* definition. Quoting myself from the |
26 |
meeting: |
27 |
|
28 |
19:37 <@ferringb> Arfrever: the kicker is, in certain cases, you're |
29 |
partally right. |
30 |
19:37 <@ferringb> Arfrever: the reality is, people will just adhere to |
31 |
the letter of the law rather than the intent |
32 |
19:37 <@ferringb> we already had that occur with removal |
33 |
19:38 <@ferringb> stupid that we have to essentially legislate common |
34 |
sense, but that's what it is right now ;) |
35 |
19:39 < NeddySeagoon> ferringb, common sense is much rarer that you |
36 |
might think :) |
37 |
19:39 <@ferringb> NeddySeagoon: well aware |
38 |
|
39 |
If someone has a definition that is commonsense, then propose it- the |
40 |
current "you must log everything" is very, very heavy handed and |
41 |
basically was a forced situation since QA cannot make folks behave |
42 |
when the rules are reliant on common sense. |
43 |
|
44 |
We cannot have situations where devs adhere to the exact wording of |
45 |
the rules but violate the spirit, which is exactly what got us into |
46 |
this mess in the first place. |
47 |
|
48 |
Proposals to refine changelog maintenance I'm definitely open to- I |
49 |
very much hate that the situation basically forced us to go heavy |
50 |
handed, but the reality is, w/out the rules QA can't do anything about |
51 |
misbehaving folks- if they try, the argument becomes "I've not |
52 |
violated any rules!". If QA is able to make decisions/actions on |
53 |
their own without mapping directly back to rules, offenders start |
54 |
claiming "the cabal is after me, I've not done anything wrong!". |
55 |
|
56 |
Basically, it's being stuck between a rock and hard place. Not sure |
57 |
there is a solution there either. |
58 |
|
59 |
As said, come up w/ a proposal for that, closing the loopholes and I'm |
60 |
very much interested; however you'll have a hell of a time trying to |
61 |
define "non-trivial" in a manner that blocks people pulling |
62 |
shenanigans. |
63 |
|
64 |
|
65 |
> The whole idea after human |
66 |
> editable ChangeLogs was to avoid whitespace changes and changes in |
67 |
> comments. In the current state it is possible to generate them on rsync |
68 |
> servers and avoid this burden. |
69 |
> |
70 |
> I would like council to update policy to allow exclude whitespace |
71 |
> changes and changes in comments. |
72 |
|
73 |
It'll be on the schedule. |
74 |
|
75 |
~harring |