Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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. Removing an unused ebuild is not the same as making changes to an ebuild. I have to disagree: BAD: . GOOD: Purge old ebuilds It's not really specific to the subject at hand, but it does /sort of/ tell you to write ChangeLog entries for removals. :) I agree with you that logging removals isn't needed as their absence is plain evidence. I do tend to log removals when there is a very good reason other than that the version has been superseded, like when a certain version kills kittens or has security issues. I agree with everyone else that policy should be clarified and that the devmanual needs to reflect policy. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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. Following that we could eventually leave only entries which point to BugZilla. In fact ChangeLogs don't seem to be very useful to users at all. I think users are more interested in what has changed in the stuff in the package and not the package itself. Although ChangeLogs are useful to us. CVS sucks and it's more comfortable to read ChangeLog file than cvs log. -- Amadeusz Żołnowski PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 documentation complete. Or you dont bother with documentation at all. I'd suggest having repoman force a changelog entry on ebuild removal. Alternatively we forget about the ChangeLogs with the git migration and move to git logs. (With a dcvs merging ChangeLogs will be a pain anyway.) But that is a different discussion. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed? Correct. That information is not useful, except when it is (like when last stable was removed for some reason) Enjoy: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365373 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 disproven. Users DO find it useful. I /as/ a user find it useful and get rather annoyed when I'm trying to trace a change and there's no entry at all for it in the changelog! So, please /do/ make ebuild removal entries in the changelog, as users /do/ find them useful. =:^) -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 user and this information is useful for me. Please, stop thinking for me and start adding ChangeLog entries. If you think this clutters ChangeLog it's possible to make format more terse, but please, document all changes (but typos and comments). -- Peter.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 project members) should not be ignoring policies when they feel like it. http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html If you want to try and change the policy then put it on the agenda of the next council meeting as there does not seem to be a consensus backing your opinion. Until then everyone is expected to play by the rules. Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 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 If you want to try and change the policy then put it on the agenda of the next council meeting as there does not seem to be a consensus backing your opinion. Until then everyone is expected to play by the rules. Petteri 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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 explicitly mention adding new ebuilds either so that's optional too? I thought this issue would already be covered by common sense but as it doesn't seem so we can clarify the issue in the next council meeting. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 ebuild, this devmanual section doesn't say anything about it. It mentions only changes to ebuilds, not removals. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 for adding a ChangeLog entry when removing an ebuild, this devmanual section doesn't say anything about it. It mentions only changes to ebuilds, not removals. For me a removal is a change to the set of ebuilds in a package. Any way I will start a new thread for a clearer text. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 disproven. Users DO find it useful. I /as/ a user find it useful and get rather annoyed when I'm trying to trace a change and there's no entry at all for it in the changelog! So, please /do/ make ebuild removal entries in the changelog, as users /do/ find them useful. =:^) 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 being removed is not a change, then adding something is a change either. Adding something is important and I think something being removed is important too. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 being removed is not a change, then adding something is a change either. Adding something is important and I think something being removed is important too. Dale 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, put it in the *change* log. If not, maybe the changelog should be called something else. Using the logic that something being removed is not a change, then adding something is not a change either. Adding something is important and I think something being removed is important too. Dale :-) :-) P. S. Corrected some bad typos. lol I need new glasses and better fingers.
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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, please do document it in the ChangeLog. Thanks, -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.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 options: --force) When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog. Thanks, no thanks
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force) When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog. Thanks, no thanks Everytime you do this you make it that much more difficult for someone to track down why a dependency just broke, or why a version they needed went away. You make a changelog entry when you add a version...removing one is just as important. This is a policy on the tree that you are needlessly breaking. If you want the policy changed, then go do that. Otherwise, follow the policies that are there for a reason. Contrary to what you may think, you are not special and the rules apply to you as well. Thanks, -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 stable libnotify (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force) When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog. Thanks, no thanks Posts like these just make me want to unsubscribe. Is there actually some debate as to whether ebuild removals should be documented in the ChangeLog? Why shouldn't this be done? It hardly takes any time at all.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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: 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, please do document it in the ChangeLog. Thanks, no thanks Posts like these just make me want to unsubscribe. Is there actually some debate as to whether ebuild removals should be documented in the ChangeLog? Why shouldn't this be done? It hardly takes any time at all. Not that I know of. AFAIK, all changes made to ebuilds are supposed to be documented in the ChangeLog. That includes version bumps, removals, stabilizations, everything. No, there is no good reason not to do this. William pgpTW9BtX5OSb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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 version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force) When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog. Thanks, no thanks Not that I want to start a war over this little thing, but multiple times I've cursed under my breath trying to track down something *not* documented in the ChangeLog and I've asked you multiple times as well to start doing thing. So, it makes my life easier if you document removals in the ChangeLog too, please do. -Jeremy
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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, broken with stable libnotify (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force) When removing an ebuild, please do document it in the ChangeLog. Thanks, no thanks Not that I want to start a war over this little thing, but multiple times I've cursed under my breath trying to track down something *not* documented in the ChangeLog and I've asked you multiple times as well to start doing thing. So, it makes my life easier if you document removals in the ChangeLog too, please do. -Jeremy 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-p2p/transmission: transmission-2.12.ebuild
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? Correct. That information is not useful, except when it is (like when last stable was removed for some reason) Enjoy: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365373
