On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:12:27 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 04/30/2011 11:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
[..]
It no where in the link you provided mentions ChangeLog is required
for removals.
Excerpts from Samuli Suominen's message of Sat Apr 30 06:39:52 +0200 2011:
sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and old is
not useful information to them
If this is not useful information, then entry about added files is not
useful either - user see that files are there.
sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and old is
not useful information to them
So no, I won't start cluttering up ChangeLogs and I would prefer if
others would stop it as well
This makes no sense.
Either you document things, and then you have to keep the
Samuli Suominen posted on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:15:55 +0300 as excerpted:
On 04/30/2011 07:45 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and old is
not useful information to them
В Сбт, 30/04/2011 в 07:39 +0300, Samuli Suominen пишет:
On 04/30/2011 07:10 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
sources.gentoo.org is for that.
It's not convenient to use browser to read ChangeLog.
So no, I won't start cluttering up ChangeLogs and I would prefer if
others would stop it as well
I'm the
On 04/30/2011 07:39 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and old is
not useful information to them
So no, I won't start cluttering up ChangeLogs and I would prefer if
others would stop it as well
Individual developers (especially QA
On 04/30/2011 10:22 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
I'd suggest having repoman force a changelog entry on ebuild removal.
Opened yesterday:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365361
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 04/30/2011 11:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
On 04/30/2011 07:39 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and old is
not useful information to them
So no, I won't start cluttering up ChangeLogs and I would prefer if
others would stop it as well
On 04/30/2011 11:12 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
It no where in the link you provided mentions ChangeLog is required for
removals. Removing an unused ebuild is not the same as making changes to
an ebuild.
We have no policy for logging removals. And that's like it should be.
It doesn't
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Petteri Räty wrote:
Individual developers (especially QA project members) should not be
ignoring policies when they feel like it.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
While I'm all for adding a ChangeLog entry when removing an
On 04/30/2011 11:35 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Petteri Räty wrote:
Individual developers (especially QA project members) should not be
ignoring policies when they feel like it.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
While I'm all
Duncan wrote:
I'm a user, and despite the fact that I tend to run ~arch or even pre-tree
testing overlays, I find ebuild removal information in the changelog WAY
more useful than, say, when some obscure arch keyworded a version.
Ergo, the argument that users don't find that info useful is
Dale wrote:
I'm a user, tho a lowly one, and even I look in the changelogs from
time to time. I don't even see why this should be discussed. If you
*change* something, but it in the *change* log. If not, maybe the
changelog should be called something else.
Using the logic that something
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
Log:
drop old, broken with stable libnotify
(Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force)
When removing an ebuild,
On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
Log:
drop old, broken with stable libnotify
(Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
Log:
drop old, broken with stable libnotify
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
ssuominen 11/04/29 18:13:31
Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
Log:
drop old, broken with
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 02:40:49PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
ssuominen 11/04/29 18:13:31
Removed:
On 04/29/2011 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
Log:
drop old, broken with stable libnotify
(Portage
On 04/30/2011 07:10 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
On 04/29/2011 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
Log:
drop old,
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and old is
not useful information to them
So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed?
On 04/30/2011 07:45 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org
wrote:
sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and old is
not useful information to them
So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed?
22 matches
Mail list logo
