1 |
Petteri Räty posted on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:18:32 +0300 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 09/11/2010 11:14 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
4 |
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:10:51 +0300 |
5 |
>> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>>>> + |
8 |
>>>> +*hachoir-parser-1.3.4 (10 Sep 2010) |
9 |
>>>> + |
10 |
>>>> + 10 Sep 2010; Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |
11 |
>>>> <arfrever@g.o> |
12 |
>>>> + -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild, +hachoir-parser-1.3.4.ebuild: |
13 |
>>>> + Version bump. |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>> Deleting an older version is relevant so it should also be mentioned |
16 |
>>> in the ChangeLog message. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> It says -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild. What exactly do you think would |
19 |
>> be gained by adding "Remove old" in this case? |
20 |
>> |
21 |
> Following your logic we should not write "Version bump" either (as |
22 |
> that's what happens by default when you add a new ebuild). |
23 |
|
24 |
You omitted the exception bit of the quote. Let me re-add it: |
25 |
|
26 |
>> The only time it's really necessary IMO is when it's the only change |
27 |
>> you're making. |
28 |
|
29 |
So if there's other logged changes, yeah, omit "Version bump" as well. |
30 |
It's redundant. But if it's the only change, by his logic, which as a |
31 |
regular changelog reader I agree with, either "Version bump" or "Remove |
32 |
old" should remain so there's at least some human entered message. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
36 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
37 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |