1 |
On 22:16 Mon 01 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> Auto generation of ChangeLogs, implies changes, and also influences |
3 |
> how current ChangeLog information is to be handled. What if |
4 |
> auto-generation is done, what does it take? |
5 |
|
6 |
For the purposes of a council meeting, I think we should construct a |
7 |
small set of specific proposals to choose from so we don't get mired in |
8 |
endless discussions during the meeting. |
9 |
|
10 |
I'd like to offer a couple of them for us to choose between. |
11 |
|
12 |
1. Include all commits, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog |
13 |
messages |
14 |
|
15 |
2. Allow commit filtering, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog |
16 |
messages |
17 |
|
18 |
- Filters to allow: keywording, stabilization, removal of ebuilds. |
19 |
Whoever implements the code can decide on the format of said filters. |
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
Do any council members feel strongly that we should include additional |
23 |
options, or is it good enough to just make a choice on these two? |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Thanks, |
27 |
Donnie |
28 |
|
29 |
Donnie Berkholz |
30 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer |
31 |
Gentoo Linux |
32 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |