W dniu wto, 02.01.2018 o godzinie 19∶13 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
> Problem:
> New stages have numerous news items listed that are likely not relevant,
> but are shown due to limitations in the filtering in NEWS items. E.g. on a
> recent stage3:
> nspawntest / # eselect news list
> News items:
>   [1]   N  2013-09-27  Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
>   [2]   N  2014-06-15  GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector
>   [3]   N  2014-10-26  GCC 4.7 Introduced the New C++11 ABI
>   [4]   N  2015-02-02  New portage plug-in sync system
>   [5]   N  2015-07-25  Python 3.4 enabled by default
>   [6]   N  2015-08-13  OpenSSH 7.0 disables ssh-dss keys by default
>   [7]   N  2015-10-22  GCC 5 Defaults to the New C++11 ABI
>   [8]   N  2016-06-19  L10N USE_EXPAND variable replacing LINGUAS
>   [9]   N  2017-11-30  New 17.0 profiles in the Gentoo repository
> Many of these are always displayed. For example:
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/gentoo-news.git/tree/2015-02-04-portage-sync-changes/2015-02-04-portage-sync-changes.en.txt
> has "Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/portage" and will be displayed on
> nearly every Gentoo machine. While relevant in 2015; I'm skeptical that its
> relevant today. I am also considering explicit changes in the filtering
> directives to resolve this in the future.
> Glep42 states:
> ---
> News Item Removal
> News items can be removed (by removing the news file from the main tree)
> when they are no longer relevant, if they are made obsolete by a future
> news item or after a long period of time. This is the same as the method
> used for updates entries.
> ---
> I suggest we delete all entries prior to 2016. Git keeps history forever,
> so folks can gander at the old entries on gitweb.gentoo.org:

For completeness, I should point out that I've seen one user complaining
about old news items disappearing. While I support the motion, I think
we should take some care to make sure that there is some 'replacement'
documentation for the things announced by news items.

In other words, it's a bad idea to remove news items when the available
documentation explains the 'before' state and the news item is the only
source of information of the 'after' state.

Best regards,
Michał Górny

Reply via email to