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:
<snip>
"Every new file, and modification to existing file should have an entry
in ChangeLog. Though not mandatory, it is highly recommended that file
removals are also recorded the same way."
</snip>
to keep everyone happy until we deal with changelogs another way or
improve the committing process. I suppose most removals happen together
with additions, so it's not a big deal.
When only a removal happens, it will be in the developer's decision how
to handle the ChangeLog (as it was always). Don't get me wrong here. I
believe that removals should be recorded. Searching in ChangeLogs for
changes is much easier than visiting sources.gentoo.org, it's more
formal and you have a complete history of your package. However, I can
undestand what Samuli says, it can be frustrating and slow to deal with
echangelog when there is a "big commit load". But again, Can it be
slower than doing keywording/stabilizations? I don't remember any arch
tester to have complained about that but we complain about removals?
Maybe it's just my memory.
--
Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist )
( Gentoo Lisp Project )
pgpoXAAAqkdCS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
