| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/15/14 15:30, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I would have no problem with the council revisiting/changing this. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> I tend to agree that the ChangeLogs in the portage tree will be |
| 6 |
>> obsoleted when we switch to git because git's logging facilities are |
| 7 |
>> much easier to use than those in CVS. Not to mention how much smaller |
| 8 |
>> the portage tree would be without ChangeLogs. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> William |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If the argument is that there are no Changelogs in rsync, then let's write |
| 14 |
> git hooks to generate them when the repository is mirrored to the rsync |
| 15 |
> host. The only problem I see is with this is then adding ChangeLog to the |
| 16 |
> manifest and gpg signing it which has to be done at the developer's side. |
| 17 |
> But, I think the tree that users get from rsync should have the logs. |
| 18 |
> Having *both* a ChangeLog file and git log is redundant. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'll add this to the next Council agenda. I think this is ripe for |
| 22 |
discussion. The last discussion of this really wasn't aimed at git |
| 23 |
anyway. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives