| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:53:43AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 14-09-2014 16:56:24 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> > > So, I don't really have a problem with your design. I still question |
| 5 |
> > > whether we still need to be generating changelogs - they seem |
| 6 |
> > > incredibly redundant. But, if people really want a redundant copy of |
| 7 |
> > > the git log, whatever... |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I don't want them too. However, I'm pretty sure people will bikeshed |
| 10 |
> > this to death if we kill them... Especially that rsync has no git log. |
| 11 |
> > Not that many users make real use of ChangeLogs, esp. considering |
| 12 |
> > how useless messages often are there... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Council had some discussions on this topic: |
| 15 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111108-summary.txt |
| 16 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111011-summary.txt |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Conclusion back then was that ChangeLog files need to stay. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I would have no problem with the council revisiting/changing this. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I tend to agree that the ChangeLogs in the portage tree will be |
| 23 |
obsoleted when we switch to git because git's logging facilities are |
| 24 |
much easier to use than those in CVS. Not to mention how much smaller |
| 25 |
the portage tree would be without ChangeLogs. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
William |
Archives