| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> What project (if any) is officially responsible for the creation or |
| 5 |
>> non-creation of Changelogs in the rsync mirrors? Do they have an |
| 6 |
>> opinion on this matter? Would they prefer that the Council make a |
| 7 |
>> decision? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> I bring this up because this seems like the sort of thing the |
| 10 |
>> Council typically doesn't interfere with. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This concerns the Portage tree as a whole, as it is seen by a large |
| 13 |
> fraction of users. Therefore I think it is a global issue, which is |
| 14 |
> genuine council territory. Also the council has discussed this topic |
| 15 |
> previously, most recently in the 20141014 and 20151108 meetings. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> From the 20141014 meeting summary: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> "do we need to continue to create new ChangeLog entries once we're |
| 20 |
> operating in git?" |
| 21 |
> No: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, |
| 22 |
> radhermit, rich0, williamh |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Sure, but the whole point of our vote was to not create a requirement. |
| 25 |
Per the previous Council decision there is no requirement for |
| 26 |
Changelogs to be present, but there is also no prohibition on them |
| 27 |
being present. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm not really advocating for changing this. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Furthermore, quoting robbat2's message from March 2nd: |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> | Either way, ~60% are in favour of getting rid of changelogs. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> | IMO this is a BETTER goal than continuing to generate them for |
| 37 |
> | rsync, and bike-shedding about what the order should be; and it |
| 38 |
> | provides a huge benefit by reducing the size of rsync by 155MiB. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> To me this sounds more like an open question than as a notice that |
| 41 |
> infra is going to drop ChangeLogs. If the council thinks that such |
| 42 |
> a decision is at infra's discretion then presumably we should make |
| 43 |
> a statement to that effect. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
That works fine for me, and was basically my intent. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
>> Right now I'm personally inclined to vote against any resolution |
| 49 |
>> requiring anybody to do anything simply because I don't see a |
| 50 |
>> pressing need to impose a policy on them. I'd encourage anybody who |
| 51 |
>> wants a repo with different/absent Changelogs to just create one and |
| 52 |
>> let others sync it as they desire. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> Presumably, this would imply duplicating the rsync mirror system? |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Sure. It has already been done once with git: |
| 57 |
https://github.com/gentoo-mirror/gentoo.git |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
I don't see why others couldn't do the same if they wished. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
In any case, I'm fine with leaving it completely up to infra. I |
| 62 |
consider Changelogs to be nice to have, and I'm not going to force |
| 63 |
devs to maintain them. I'm not sure how I could even force a dev to |
| 64 |
maintain them if I wanted to. At most I could volunteer to maintain |
| 65 |
them myself, and I don't intend to do that. However, if somebody else |
| 66 |
wants to maintain them and feels there is a barrier standing in their |
| 67 |
way I don't have a problem with removing that barrier if it is |
| 68 |
reasonable to do so. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Rich |
Archives