| 1 |
Samuli Suominen posted on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:15:55 +0300 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 04/30/2011 07:45 AM, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen |
| 5 |
>> <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is |
| 7 |
>>> not useful information to them |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed? |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> Correct. That information is not useful, except when it is (like when |
| 13 |
> last stable was removed for some reason) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Enjoy: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365373 |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'm a user, and despite the fact that I tend to run ~arch or even pre-tree |
| 20 |
testing overlays, I find ebuild removal information in the changelog WAY |
| 21 |
more useful than, say, when some obscure arch keyworded a version. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Ergo, the argument that users don't find that info useful is disproven. |
| 24 |
Users DO find it useful. I /as/ a user find it useful and get rather |
| 25 |
annoyed when I'm trying to trace a change and there's no entry at all for |
| 26 |
it in the changelog! |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So, please /do/ make ebuild removal entries in the changelog, as users |
| 29 |
/do/ find them useful. =:^) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 33 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 34 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives