1 |
On L, 2010-09-11 at 23:18 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: |
2 |
> On 09/11/2010 11:14 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:10:51 +0300 |
4 |
> > Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> >>> + |
7 |
> >>> +*hachoir-parser-1.3.4 (10 Sep 2010) |
8 |
> >>> + |
9 |
> >>> + 10 Sep 2010; Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever@g.o> |
10 |
> >>> + -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild, +hachoir-parser-1.3.4.ebuild: |
11 |
> >>> + Version bump. |
12 |
> >>> |
13 |
> >> |
14 |
> >> Deleting an older version is relevant so it should also be mentioned in |
15 |
> >> the ChangeLog message. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > It says -hachoir-parser-1.3.3.ebuild. What exactly do you think would be |
18 |
> > gained by adding "Remove old" in this case? |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Following your logic we should not write "Version bump" either (as |
22 |
> that's what happens by default when you add a new ebuild). |
23 |
|
24 |
That's why I tend to spend the time to briefly summarize what the |
25 |
version bump actually improves for users by upstream (see my gstreamer |
26 |
bumps for example). I spend the time once, thousands of users get the |
27 |
information handily with emerge --changelog and the like, without |
28 |
digging into /usr/share/doc/*/NEWS* _after_ upgrading and already having |
29 |
had to do the work to decide if its important upgrade for them or not |
30 |
(in case of conservative upgrading). |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Mart Raudsepp |