On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, 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. >> >> Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal >> Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations. >> >> Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires >> changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting >> removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as >> well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version >> removals being useless. > > that wasnt my point, although it is a good one. the idea that policy exists > because i disagree with others is bunk. whether it be people complaining to > other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still a > policy XYZ. > -mike
There _was_ a policy before, but it was unclear about documenting version removals and arguably didn't require it, so after a few developers (you've been often mentioned as one of them) refused to document version removals in the changelog, even after prompting on gentoo-dev@ the council fixed the policy. Of course the policy doesn't exist simply because you disagree with others, the policy exists (and was instituted/clarified) because you wouldn't do something that most developers and users find useful and thought was already policy, even after being asked. Why does this have to be such a struggle. It's pretty clear that the policy is going to be changed again to fix the oversight of silly situations like I mentioned previously, but there's a near unanimous agreement that documenting version removals _is_ useful. So, please, just start doing it. It's really not a lot of work. I'm sure something more can be done to make this more automated, but until then please just fucking do it and let's stop all this silliness. Matt
