On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@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)" <vap...@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
