1 |
Fabian Groffen posted on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:00:22 +0200 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 26-10-2011 14:02:12 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
>> Well, if the desire to trim changelogs is generally agreed upon we |
5 |
>> could always just count the lines and post a top-100 list or something |
6 |
>> and let package maintainers go in and truncate things as seems bet to |
7 |
>> them, with the guideline to keep the file intact up to a year before |
8 |
>> the last commit. Eventually the files will be cleaned up. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Don't you think it's much more sensical to remove all entries for |
11 |
> ebuilds that are no longer in the tree then? |
12 |
|
13 |
1) Given the irregularity of older entries, that could be difficult to |
14 |
automate, tho it could be done going forward, once a log has been |
15 |
manually trimmed once. |
16 |
|
17 |
2) I'd argue for keeping upstream version commits and removals, so at |
18 |
minimum, the dates they were in the tree can be tracked. (FWIW, I often |
19 |
find myself checking this information when helping someone try to build |
20 |
something half-modern on a stale distro like CentOS 5, for instance.) It |
21 |
could be argued that this is a reasonably important minimal historical |
22 |
record. |
23 |
|
24 |
But all stabilizations, -rX bumps, and changes other than upstream |
25 |
version addition and removal, indeed, removing those entries say three |
26 |
months minimum after the ebuilds are no longer in the tree does make |
27 |
sense. (And as a bonus, such removal would make the historical record |
28 |
above, addition and removal of older upstream versions, far easier to |
29 |
read, since it'd be all that's left for versions already out-of-tree. =:^) |
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 |