On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: > To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco > was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's > far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to > council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't > going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs > about ChangeLogging removals.
how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on the policy towards creating it. > You and I both know that a removal can (and sometimes does) cause breakage. > These kinds of changes are things that your fellow devs (as well as many > users) would like to see in ChangeLogs. I do *not* think that this is an > unreasonable request. I find it to be a little.. inconsiderate I guess, when > any developer fails to heed a reasonable request from another developer or > user. I know I personally try to accommodate people if they ask me to do > something slightly differently to make their lives easier. Why is it that > you can't do that? Is running echangelog (or hell, scripting something) for > a removal really that hard or undesirable? Can you really not spare the > extra 10 seconds? I mean, come on. if you want useless information, then automate it. there's no reason at all to not do so. i prefer to keep useful information in the changelogs of packages i maintain without cluttering up with noise. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
