1 |
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 12:14:40AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday 21 October 2005 19:06, Marius Mauch wrote: |
3 |
> > Jason Stubbs wrote: |
4 |
> > > After thinking about it, incremental "feature creep" does seem like the |
5 |
> > > best way to go at this late stage in 2.0's life. The problem is how to |
6 |
> > > guage what is and what is not more trouble than worth. Perhaps adhering |
7 |
> > > to the kernel's rule of "Separate each logical change into its own patch" |
8 |
> > > would help to ease the possible impact of larger changes? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Probably the best solution. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Brian, you agree on this? It'll mean splitting up the cache patch... |
13 |
Would be curious how it would be chunked up... |
14 |
patch of the new subsystem, patch of portage.py modifications? |
15 |
|
16 |
Depends on def. of logical changes I guess; in the case of the cache |
17 |
patch, it's kind of all or none with the changes. |
18 |
Suggestions/preferences? |
19 |
|
20 |
> I'm not much for the ChangeLog at all really. At least not without going over |
21 |
> what makes a good commit message and setting up some guidelines. I'm |
22 |
> definitely for any ChangeLog being autogenerated though. |
23 |
No ChangeLog will piss off users; dev's already poke about it on each |
24 |
release. |
25 |
|
26 |
So... guideliness. ? |
27 |
~harring |