Fabian Groffen posted on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:00:22 +0200 as excerpted: > On 26-10-2011 14:02:12 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Well, if the desire to trim changelogs is generally agreed upon we >> could always just count the lines and post a top-100 list or something >> and let package maintainers go in and truncate things as seems bet to >> them, with the guideline to keep the file intact up to a year before >> the last commit. Eventually the files will be cleaned up. > > Don't you think it's much more sensical to remove all entries for > ebuilds that are no longer in the tree then?
1) Given the irregularity of older entries, that could be difficult to automate, tho it could be done going forward, once a log has been manually trimmed once. 2) I'd argue for keeping upstream version commits and removals, so at minimum, the dates they were in the tree can be tracked. (FWIW, I often find myself checking this information when helping someone try to build something half-modern on a stale distro like CentOS 5, for instance.) It could be argued that this is a reasonably important minimal historical record. But all stabilizations, -rX bumps, and changes other than upstream version addition and removal, indeed, removing those entries say three months minimum after the ebuilds are no longer in the tree does make sense. (And as a bonus, such removal would make the historical record above, addition and removal of older upstream versions, far easier to read, since it'd be all that's left for versions already out-of-tree. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
