-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/07/11 17:09, Mike Frysinger wrote: > 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. >
There never would have been any such policy had people been a little considerate of the requests of others. This could have ended like so: Dev y: "Hey dev x, can you please ChangeLog removals please. I find it very useful." Dev x: "Sure. I don't see use in the information, but if it's going to make your job easier, I'll try to remember to do it." Dev y: "Thanks!" Then this never would have even gotten to council, council never would have passed the current policy, and we never would have gotten to the bloody crapfest that it is now. I personally want people to heed my requests. The only way that will work is if I try to heed others. The only way to work in a community is a little give and take. >> 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. Just because you deem it useless doesn't make it so. If someone else sees use in the information, I fail to see why it is such a huge deal to log it. Even if for no other reason than to make someone else's life a bit easier. And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current situation. Regards, - -- Dane Smith (c1pher) Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86 RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN7pbLAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxPTkP/AtB5skbFy9GOOpw1kKEu+jI 8z60RD/usXB+TAuHJGKqEDGg8mHzaY7xHMp8PaIoGSzUMGLFHYvnpfkiG1iMzGzF r/F6uLpxpDS35vDHJs5TWMZpiefK8D2SGF/mup68a75R3f7c7+FV2iFUSsJgqq5M iNJGHjzmnGG7utFIO4yRafuSFD1+dn3cZvWjUA6pRvZrMpY+hDRJ9ntuOeqn8CX9 Uw75PXWGEk8ebtR1hewR6sLQWJR1SVucexICCfOHEmLygpM3WJ9mPGxiiOT0iXRD Z7zO5bajoun6lv+xbAW5G4ITpk0s4eqXUQQ9Y1sWMmctXXkbmRn0MeGzK5EEhEen v+L7dRs7ZXjrD+rY+eni87rGNyS/GnUlq6Kx9cuJQJ/OrTB93wu1metnOlOIUH5N oEfvQq3gfsIshxGLmrkuwPZT6FkMxVCmEpyawMc2teSrZXrkHxWRVsW4W8u5+WQp fxp0HcLc4yS8BPTTgrAlT5UI/Tm3qPf+7UhgvH9Sx8AkmMgVD3sUOl38i4wiLvCu VsjRbCQ7tjrjM5VemaBOJzubcg0pbnHd9mhNK/2I1BDQjStb7EeXxiRvxJh61L6C u52mLmgHCvIcxkJkfdmDyl4We1BhvRp8u6lqIDjuxjgm5ge+JA2YtvYyOAYz4Ay4 zwPb45qd/GK9/dGAgtEf =7Ajj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
