On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:14:05 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > On 06/07/11 15:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > waste of time. i simply wont bother removing old versions until
> > > changelogs start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.
>
> For the record, I support Dane's statement 100%.
>
> In addition, I would like to say that you're behaving pretty much childish
> and obstructive.

in no way whatsoever am i obstructing anyone. look up the word and try again.

as for childish, that's your opinion of course and everyone has one. here's
another: forcing useless information which can be automatically dumped is a
waste of developer time.
-mike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/07/11 17:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
>> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
>> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
>> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to
>> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't
>> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs
>> about ChangeLogging removals.
>
> how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other
> people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on the
> policy towards creating it.
>

There never would have been any such policy had people been a little
considerate of the requests of others. This could have ended like so:

Dev y: "Hey dev x, can you please ChangeLog removals please. I find it
very useful."
Dev x: "Sure. I don't see use in the information, but if it's going to
make your job easier, I'll try to remember to do it."
Dev y: "Thanks!"

Then this never would have even gotten to council, council never would
have passed the current policy, and we never would have gotten to the
bloody crapfest that it is now.

I personally want people to heed my requests. The only way that will
work is if I try to heed others. The only way to work in a community is
a little give and take.

>> You and I both know that a removal can (and sometimes does) cause breakage.
>> These kinds of changes are things that your fellow devs (as well as many
>> users) would like to see in ChangeLogs. I do *not* think that this is an
>> unreasonable request. I find it to be a little.. inconsiderate I guess, when
>> any developer fails to heed a reasonable request from another developer or
>> user. I know I personally try to accommodate people if they ask me to do
>> something slightly differently to make their lives easier. Why is it that
>> you can't do that? Is running echangelog (or hell, scripting something) for
>> a removal really that hard or undesirable? Can you really not spare the
>> extra 10 seconds? I mean, come on.
>
> if you want useless information, then automate it. there's no reason at all
> to not do so. i prefer to keep useful information in the changelogs of
> packages i maintain without cluttering up with noise.

Just because you deem it useless doesn't make it so. If someone else
sees use in the information, I fail to see why it is such a huge deal to
log it. Even if for no other reason than to make someone else's life a
bit easier.

And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
situation.

Regards,
- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN7pbLAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxPTkP/AtB5skbFy9GOOpw1kKEu+jI
8z60RD/usXB+TAuHJGKqEDGg8mHzaY7xHMp8PaIoGSzUMGLFHYvnpfkiG 1iMzGzF
r/F6uLpxpDS35vDHJs5TWMZpiefK8D2SGF/mup68a75R3f7c7+FV2iFUSsJgqq5M
iNJGHjzmnGG7utFIO4yRafuSFD1+dn3cZvWjUA6pRvZrMpY+hD RJ9ntuOeqn8CX9
Uw75PXWGEk8ebtR1hewR6sLQWJR1SVucexICCfOHEmLygpM3WJ 9mPGxiiOT0iXRD
Z7zO5bajoun6lv+xbAW5G4ITpk0s4eqXUQQ9Y1sWMmctXXkbmR n0MeGzK5EEhEen
v+L7dRs7ZXjrD+rY+eni87rGNyS/GnUlq6Kx9cuJQJ/OrTB93wu1metnOlOIUH5N
oEfvQq3gfsIshxGLmrkuwPZT6FkMxVCmEpyawMc2teSrZXrkHx WRVsW4W8u5+WQp
fxp0HcLc4yS8BPTTgrAlT5UI/Tm3qPf+7UhgvH9Sx8AkmMgVD3sUOl38i4wiLvCu
VsjRbCQ7tjrjM5VemaBOJzubcg0pbnHd9mhNK/2I1BDQjStb7EeXxiRvxJh61L6C
u52mLmgHCvIcxkJkfdmDyl4We1BhvRp8u6lqIDjuxjgm5ge+JA 2YtvYyOAYz4Ay4
zwPb45qd/GK9/dGAgtEf
=7Ajj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 10:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:41:08 Mark Loeser wrote:
>>> "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
>>>> vapier * * *11/05/16 03:30:02
>>>>
>>>> * Removed: * * * * * * *bzip2-1.0.5-r1.ebuild
>>>> * Log:
>>>> * old
>>>
>>> Please document removal of ebuilds in ChangeLogs.
>>
>> waste of time. *i simply wont bother removing old versions until changelogs
>> start being autogenerated or the policy is sane again.
>
> +1, see: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097#c75
>
> and I have to say it's all on councils shoulders how bad of an impact
> this will have on the tree with several devs leaving old files around or
> leaving trivial fixes uncommitted to workaround bad policy.

To avoid cluttering that bug report more, I'll respond here.

It seems like the obvious answer is yes. The devrel resolution simply
says that you can have commit access back after promising to follow
the policy, and I can't see any way you wouldn't be following the
policy by not making commits where you'd have otherwise left the
changelog untouched.

Matt

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
>> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
>> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
>> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to
>> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't
>> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs
>> about ChangeLogging removals.
>
> how is this relevant at all ? *i dont find value in these entries, other
> people do. *my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on the
> policy towards creating it.

Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal
Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations.

Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires
changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting
removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as
well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version
removals being useless.

Matt

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:23:23 Dane Smith wrote:
> On 06/07/11 17:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
> >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
> >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to
> >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't
> >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs
> >> about ChangeLogging removals.
> >
> > how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other
> > people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on
> > the policy towards creating it.
>
> There never would have been any such policy had people been a little
> considerate of the requests of others. This could have ended like so:

sorry, but that's utter bs. there is a disconnect between what you find
valuable and what i find valuable. all you're doing is assuming your position
is right and mine is wrong and thus i'm in the wrong and thus any disagreement
that causes strife after that is my fault. if common ground between
developers cannot be attained, then it is the council's job to step in and
make a decision.

> And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
> situation.

of course it does. it makes the current situation irrelevant.
-mike

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
> > situation.
>
> of course it does. it makes the current situation irrelevant.

Does this mean we should shortly be expecting to see you do the work to
migrate the tree to Git and to automate ChangeLog generation?

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
>> > situation.
>>
>> of course it does. *it makes the current situation irrelevant.
>
> Does this mean we should shortly be expecting to see you do the work to
> migrate the tree to Git and to automate ChangeLog generation?

Automated changelog entries do not require git.

-A

>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
>

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:36:59 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:35:11 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current
> > > situation.
> >
> > of course it does. it makes the current situation irrelevant.
>
> Does this mean we should shortly be expecting to see you do the work to
> migrate the tree to Git and to automate ChangeLog generation?

the tree has already been migrated. automatic ChangeLog generation is trivial
to implement, and many many projects already have scripts to do it.
-mike

On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
> >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
> >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to
> >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't
> >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs
> >> about ChangeLogging removals.
> >
> > how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other
> > people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on
> > the policy towards creating it.
>
> Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal
> Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations.
>
> Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires
> changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting
> removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as
> well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version
> removals being useless.

that wasnt my point, although it is a good one. the idea that policy exists
because i disagree with others is bunk. whether it be people complaining to
other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still a
policy XYZ.
-mike

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:32:03 Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote:
>> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco
>> >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's
>> >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to
>> >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't
>> >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs
>> >> about ChangeLogging removals.
>> >
>> > how is this relevant at all ? *i dont find value in these entries, other
>> > people do. *my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on
>> > the policy towards creating it.
>>
>> Plenty of people have, successfully I though, argued that removal
>> Changelog entries _are_ useful and have cited relevant situations.
>>
>> Make a case about how the current policy is stupid in that it requires
>> changelog entries for trivial whitespace changes or for documenting
>> removals of packages even when it means the changelog is deleted as
>> well, but for god sake, stop the nonsense about documenting version
>> removals being useless.
>
> that wasnt my point, although it is a good one. *the idea that policy exists
> because i disagree with others is bunk. *whether it be people complaining to
> other devs to do XYZ or the council makes it official XYZ, there is still a
> policy XYZ.
> -mike

There _was_ a policy before, but it was unclear about documenting
version removals and arguably didn't require it, so after a few
developers (you've been often mentioned as one of them) refused to
document version removals in the changelog, even after prompting on
gentoo-dev@ the council fixed the policy.

Of course the policy doesn't exist simply because you disagree with
others, the policy exists (and was instituted/clarified) because you
wouldn't do something that most developers and users find useful and
thought was already policy, even after being asked.

Why does this have to be such a struggle. It's pretty clear that the
policy is going to be changed again to fix the oversight of silly
situations like I mentioned previously, but there's a near unanimous
agreement that documenting version removals _is_ useful. So, please,
just start doing it. It's really not a lot of work. I'm sure something
more can be done to make this more automated, but until then please
just fucking do it and let's stop all this silliness.

Matt