| 1 |
El mar, 16-09-2014 a las 07:26 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Ulrich Mueller: |
| 4 |
> >> |
| 5 |
> >> ChangeLogs are aimed at users |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Did any1 ask them if they care? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'm sure somebody will reply and say that they care. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It still seems like a lot of overhead to me for a very one-off |
| 13 |
> workflow. Maybe if portage automatically output the relevant |
| 14 |
> changelog entries in pretend mode we could pretend that they're news |
| 15 |
> or something like that. Most likely, if you stick something important |
| 16 |
> in the changelog it will be read by maybe 0.1% of our users before |
| 17 |
> emerging the package. Maybe if you're lucky 20% of people running |
| 18 |
> into some kind of breakage will read the changelog after the fact. I |
| 19 |
> imagine that 19.5% of those 20% would check the git log if the |
| 20 |
> changelog didn't exist. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> If we actually move to a model where many users actually sync their |
| 23 |
> trees from git, then I'd expect the changelogs to be even less useful. |
| 24 |
> After all, git will actually tell you what changed since your last |
| 25 |
> sync. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> Rich |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Maybe one option would be to kill Changelogs and provide a script to let |
| 32 |
people get git messages and reformat them in a way similar as current |
| 33 |
ChangeLog files, that way people will still be able to save this |
| 34 |
information for the future (if they won't have internet conection later |
| 35 |
for example) and read it simply with "less" for example. With this |
| 36 |
option, we won't need to provide Changelogs and distribute them but |
| 37 |
people wanting to have them will still be able to generate them if |
| 38 |
wanted (for example, just after updating portage tree) |
Archives