On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@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.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 02:40:49PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> >> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@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

On 04/29/2011 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:

On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:

"Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)"<ssuominen@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



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

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)"<ssuominen@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
>>
>
> 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

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@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 <ssuominen@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

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

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
>> <ssuominen@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

> 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
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/