| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Tho I get Dale's somewhat confused and now belabored point as well. For |
| 4 |
> people who don't know how to do git on their own, as clearly he doesn't, |
| 5 |
> the official signaling of what the stopgap changelog alternatives were |
| 6 |
> until the scripts were running to regenerate them from git, simply wasn't |
| 7 |
> there. Without that, confusion reigned, and blaming the user for |
| 8 |
> confusion in the absence of official signaling really doesn't help the |
| 9 |
> situation, either. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Fair enough. If we had outright decided to get rid of changelogs we'd |
| 13 |
probably have published a news item with clear instructions on how to |
| 14 |
just obtain this info from git. Instead we opted to keep them, but |
| 15 |
they broke, so there was no news. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Rich |
Archives