Le samedi 30 avril 2011 à 11:46 +0300, Petteri Räty a écrit :
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
>
> There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for
> ChangeLog entries is. See:
>
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f829da2375f1ce
On 02-05-2011 02:04:57 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Having the servers do that, will also allow us to provide cut down
> > Changelogs ( lets say keep that last 10 entries ) so we can provide
> > a more minimal portage tree, size wise.
>
> Ten is way too small. Chances are that after one round
> On Mon, 2 May 2011, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> I don't get why someone would want to edit ChangeLogs. Could you
> list some use-cases besides editing of typos?
Fixing typos should be enough reason alone. It also happened to me
more than once that I specified a wrong bug number, or that I add
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:21:37 +0300
Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> Taking the latest portage snapshot from a mirror, the sum* of the
> apparent sizes of all its files (forgetting directories, filesystems.
> overhead etc.) is ~189Mb. The sum of ChangeLog files is ~66Mb, that
> is a ~35% fracti
On Sun, 1 May 2011 13:43:25 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Beyond that... I suspect *everyone* would appreciate optimization
> done to echangelog. From a quick look... seems like it's cvs status,
> than a cvs diff. Trying to collapse that into a single op, falling
> back to status might not be a
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:12:01 +0400
Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Сбт, 30/04/2011 в 12:02 +0300, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> > On 04/30/2011 11:46 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > > I propose a simple new text: "Every commit should have an entry in
> > > ChangeLog."
>
> Nonfunctional commits should not be reco
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:50:01AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> I don't get why someone would want to edit ChangeLogs. Could you list
>> some use-cases besides editing of typos?
> One that I have seen before was the change of a URL for
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:50:01AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> I don't get why someone would want to edit ChangeLogs. Could you list
> some use-cases besides editing of typos?
One that I have seen before was the change of a URL for users to migrate
their data, when upstream changed the URL. Th
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 May 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the
>> Changelog and on the commit log, it probably worth the effort of
>> having the rsync servers create the Changelogs before popu
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:04:57AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 May 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> Ten is way too small. Chances are that after one round of
> stabilisations the ChangeLog entry for the last real change to the
> package will be gone. We should keep at least one
> On Sun, 1 May 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the
> Changelog and on the commit log, it probably worth the effort of
> having the rsync servers create the Changelogs before populate the
> portage tree.
A separate ChangeLog has the advan
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:33:25PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the Changelog
> > and on the commit log, it probably worth the effort of having the rsync
> > servers create
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the Changelog
> and on the commit log, it probably worth the effort of having the rsync
> servers create the Changelogs before populate the portage tree. Having
> the servers d
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:00:17PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 30-04-2011 11:46:37 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for
> > ChangeLog entries is. See:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:06:47PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for
> echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put
> into committing them. That's just not worth the effort.
This argument sucks; if the tool
В Вск, 01/05/2011 в 13:44 +0300, Panagiotis Christopoulos пишет:
> On 12:06 Sun 01 May , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > So not only they are rather useless, and information you can easily
> get
> > from sources.gentoo.org, they take your time as well.
>
> Then, let's change it to:
>
> "Though not
Am Sonntag 01 Mai 2011, 11:06:47 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
> ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for
> echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put
> into committing them. That's just not worth the effort.
Ever heard of opening a second terminal?
On 12:06 Sun 01 May , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> So not only they are rather useless, and information you can easily get
> from sources.gentoo.org, they take your time as well.
Then, let's change it to:
"Every new file, and modification to existing file should have an entry
in ChangeLog. Though
On 01-05-2011 12:06:47 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for
> echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put
> into committing them. That's just not worth the effort.
Dude, you should have stuck with your argumen
On 30-04-2011 11:46:37 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
>
> There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for
> ChangeLog entries is. See:
>
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f829da2375f1ceab766a800913
On 04/30/2011 11:39 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> On 12:02 Sat 30 Apr , Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>
>> "Every new file, and modification to existing file should have an entry
>> in ChangeLog." to skip the proper ChangeLog-less removals.
>
> There is something I can't undestand reading al
On 12:02 Sat 30 Apr , Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> "Every new file, and modification to existing file should have an entry
> in ChangeLog." to skip the proper ChangeLog-less removals.
There is something I can't undestand reading all the previous
discussions. You disagree with logging removals o
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:02:35PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > On 04/30/2011 11:46 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
> > >
> > > There doesn't seem to be
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I am actually with Samuli on this. Unless there is a particular reason
> for removing a package, I don't see any point of documenting this change
> anywhere.
> What difference would it make to you if you see an entry " -foo-1.0
> o
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:02:35PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/30/2011 11:46 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for
> > ChangeLog entries is. See:
> >
В Сбт, 30/04/2011 в 12:02 +0300, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> On 04/30/2011 11:46 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > I propose a simple new text: "Every commit should have an entry in
> > ChangeLog."
Nonfunctional commits should not be recored in ChangeLog. Personally I
quite frequently add URLs of upstream
On 11:07 Sat 30 Apr , Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> ...
> I won't clutter ChangeLogs with useless entries for whitespace changes
> or spelling fixes in comments, for example. They already account for a
> considerable (too large?) percentage of the portage tree [1], and we
> shouldn't blow them up fu
El sáb, 30-04-2011 a las 11:46 +0300, Petteri Räty escribió:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
>
> There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for
> ChangeLog entries is. See:
>
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f829da2375f1cea
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Petteri Räty wrote:
> I propose a simple new text: "Every commit should have an entry in
> ChangeLog."
This would throw the baby out with the bath water.
I won't clutter ChangeLogs with useless entries for whitespace changes
or spelling fixes in comments, for example.
On 04/30/2011 11:46 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
>
> There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for
> ChangeLog entries is. See:
>
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f829da2375f1ceab766a800913cc4998
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for
ChangeLog entries is. See:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f829da2375f1ceab766a800913cc4998.xml
I propose a simple new text: "Every commit should
31 matches
Mail list logo
