| 1 |
Samuli Suominen posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:34:35 +0300 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters. My |
| 6 |
>> last post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on |
| 7 |
>> RHEL. He was missing the libdbusmenu-qt dependency |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
>> Because the information was in the changelog |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
>> 0.3.2 isn't much more than a year old (on RHEL 5 it's likely an |
| 12 |
>> upgrade!), but was already considered old enough to remove |
| 13 |
>> ~6 months later. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> That information on 0.3.2 removal wouldn't have been available to me |
| 16 |
>> had someone not put it in the changelog. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
>> Having that information not available locally on my system, either by |
| 19 |
>> changelog as now, or by git whatchanged, if users finally get access to |
| 20 |
>> direct git-pull once the main tree is git-upgraded, would be a serious |
| 21 |
>> regression. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Mike's correct. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Not having package removal information in the changelog would be a |
| 29 |
serious regression, as the last paragraph states in summary of the |
| 30 |
previous, which is excerpted above. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 34 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 35 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives