| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid a policy |
| 7 |
doesn't really strike me as an example of exemplary QA either. There |
| 8 |
are lots of good reasons to keep a few versions of a package in-tree. |
| 9 |
None of them should be used merely as excuses to avoid running the |
| 10 |
"echangelog" command. I could see foot-dragging over a policy that |
| 11 |
requires refactoring many ebuilds or something, but the Council tends |
| 12 |
to avoid things like this precisely because they are onerous. |
| 13 |
Personally I tend to just run echangelog for everything anyway - it is |
| 14 |
easier to changelog a trivial change than to spend half a week on -dev |
| 15 |
debating anybody who questions whether it is trivial. Besides, I |
| 16 |
spend much of my career working on systems that won't commit anything |
| 17 |
without a documented "reason for change" - the changelogs on these |
| 18 |
systems typically grow to fill 75% of the entire databases. Gentoo is |
| 19 |
like a breath of fresh air... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The one thing I hope doesn't come out of this is a Council that is |
| 22 |
even more reluctant to act out of fear of being slapped around by the |
| 23 |
community anytime a developer threatens to quit. Sure, we can't |
| 24 |
really afford to lose people, but we can even less afford a system |
| 25 |
where any one person can just hold the entire endeavor hostage. If we |
| 26 |
think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see |
| 27 |
how the git migration goes. Sometimes individual devs just need to |
| 28 |
see which way the wind is blowing and do their part to make sure we at |
| 29 |
least end up anywhere other than going in circles... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives