Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild

[Samuli Suominen]

On 10/28/2010 07:22 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 28-10-2010 17:20:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
>>> what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
>>> I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
>>> be justified by "QA".
>>
>> removal of quotes from "${A}", EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
>> econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
>> cosmetics not worth logging about
>>
>> so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
>> 'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
>>
>> wont be happening
>
> I just want to avoid that it becomes legal to change any random ebuild
> to someone's liking, and then commit it without ChangeLog (so it is less
> visible?) with the commit message "qa".
>
> Your committing this way actually supports the thought that you have
> something to hide, because you don't document what you did, and you
> didn't update the ChangeLog reducing overal visibility of your actions.

ChangeLog is for users. The package content didn't change at all. There
was nothing to log in for.

At most, we avoided future bug or two about package not respecting CC or
package not installing anything but ebuild succeeding due to missing || die.

> I don't want to actually get that suspicious feeling, that makes that I
> actually start looking into what you committed.

When I see someone skipping ChangeLog, I take it as "something so minor,
not worth looking into at all". Quite the opposite.

> You, as a QA member, should extra carefully stick to the standing rules
> (even though you don't like them, or find them too slow/bothersome),
> because you can't tell others they don't do things you don't bother to
> do yourself either, do you?

Absolutely, you are right.



Afterall, the ebuild is fine, no? Why are we having this discussion? ;-)