1 |
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 11:25 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: |
2 |
> > I'm also for telling the users to rsync exclude the ChangeLogs if they |
3 |
> > don't want them instead of getting rid of them or crippling them. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> I don't think that's really a solution. That's just a way to minimize |
6 |
> what they get. If you really want to look at a solution, you should |
7 |
> reduce whats actually in the changelog. All the changelogs are in CVS, |
8 |
> and if someone wanted to go look back at any changes, they can either |
9 |
> look at viewcvs or (hopefully soon), grab it via anoncvs. I bet you >80% |
10 |
> of things in the changelogs are for things that are in the attic. I say |
11 |
> we need a way to either have echangelog (or another script) to clean out |
12 |
> changelog entries for things that are in the attic (and make sense to |
13 |
> take out). Maybe another option would be to remove any 'version bump' |
14 |
> type entries that are old as well. |
15 |
|
16 |
OK. I keep seeing this argument about ChangeLog stuff for ebuilds in |
17 |
the Attic and I just think people might not be thinking it totally |
18 |
trough. For example, I made changes to the vmware-workstation ebuilds |
19 |
to force group membership a while back because of a security bug. |
20 |
However, there's been another security bug since, so those changes were |
21 |
made on ebuilds now in Attic, but the change is still valid in the |
22 |
current ebuilds. |
23 |
|
24 |
I don't see a problem with removing version bump and stabilization |
25 |
messages, but everything else should stay in the ChangeLog for as long |
26 |
as the package is still around. |
27 |
|
28 |
> I just don't see the point of keeping changelog entries for stuff that |
29 |
> isn't even viewable in the tree anymore. We have CVS, the record will be |
30 |
> there, lets use it. We can't cater to every user out there, but come up |
31 |
> with a solid solution that makes sense and still gives them some form of |
32 |
> ability to look back. |
33 |
|
34 |
Because as I stated before, there are many times where the ChangeLog |
35 |
entry for an older ebuild applies to the newer ones. This is especially |
36 |
true when ebuilds are simply copied for version bumps. Removing this |
37 |
information removes a lot of data. Forcing users/developers to use CVS |
38 |
makes it more of a hassle than the gains will give us. |
39 |
|
40 |
Again, I think this is another case of us doing things that aren't |
41 |
necessary rather than educating users. |
42 |
|
43 |
I wouldn't have a problem with seeing ChangeLog in a default |
44 |
RSYNC_EXCLUDES with a nice comment explaining how to get the ChangeLog |
45 |
files. This way we are removing the problem by default, educating |
46 |
users, and still not removing any data or options for our users and |
47 |
developers. |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
Chris Gianelloni |
51 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
52 |
x86 Architecture Team |
53 |
Games - Developer |
54 |
Gentoo Linux |