>
> Sounds good. So, we have a spec... and the portage team has two months to
> get it into "emerge --changelog". :)
>
For whoever is interested, I've just filed a portage feature request in bug
389611.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389611
Please support "rotated ChangeLog files" in
On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 11:59:55 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Andreas K Huettel wrote:
> > On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 10:16:53 Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> >> As we do have the "$delay before breaking old" period, usually with
> >> $delay="1 year": Should we also a
On Nov 3, 2011 10:25 a.m., "Andreas K. Huettel"
wrote:
>
> On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 09:09:19 Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we should keep old changelogs in a separate directory to decrease
> > ebuilddir pollution?
>
> Not sure about that.
Thank you for this infusion of practicality.
Ho
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Andreas K Huettel wrote:
> On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 10:16:53 Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>> As we do have the "$delay before breaking old" period, usually with
>> $delay="1 year": Should we also apply this $delay to the output of
>> above command?
> Makes all per
On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 09:09:19 Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Maybe we should keep old changelogs in a separate directory to decrease
> ebuilddir pollution?
Not sure about that.
>
> > The new ChangeLog file will be identical to the current ChangeLog
> > file except for being truncated at 1/1/
On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 10:16:53 Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
> Again for 'emerge --changelog':
>
> As we do have the "$delay before breaking old" period, usually with
> $delay="1 year": Should we also apply this $delay to the output of above
> command?
>
> If yes, what I can think of AT
On Donnerstag 03 November 2011 09:24:07 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Andreas K Huettel wrote:
> > The "old entries" file ChangeLog-2010 will be identical to the
> > current ChangeLog file except for skipping at the start all entries
> > added later than 31/12/2010.
>
> Just to
On 11/03/2011 01:33 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> In a week's time I personally, manually, will "rotate" all ChangeLog files
> larger than 100k in the tree, by splitting them at 31/12/2010-1/1/2011.
> Opinions, flames, ...?
Again for 'emerge --changelog':
As we do have the "$delay before b
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Andreas K Huettel wrote:
> The "old entries" file ChangeLog-2010 will be identical to the
> current ChangeLog file except for skipping at the start all entries
> added later than 31/12/2010.
Just to make sure that I understand it: Does this imply that the old
entries fil
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:33:38 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> > 2) I'd like to suggest that for changelogs that grow beyond a
> > certain size (e.g. profiles/ChangeLog) the file is "rotated"
> > similar to /var/log logfiles. I.e. the current file is renamed with
> > a date extens
On 11/02/2011 08:33 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> I currently count 19 relevant files. If we keep the 100k limit and rotate
> yearly, this will be doable by hand in the foreseeable future and any attempt
> at automating is a complete waste of time.
>
> Opinions, flames, ...?
>
Just an observ
Dear all,
> 2) I'd like to suggest that for changelogs that grow beyond a certain size
> (e.g. profiles/ChangeLog) the file is "rotated" similar to /var/log
> logfiles. I.e. the current file is renamed with a date extension and a new
> file is started. This has the benefit that the archived file i
12 matches
Mail list logo
