On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted: > >> On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote: >>> It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already >>> involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they >>> simply avoided separate removals. In fact, in borderline cases where a >>> trivial change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a >>> bigger change to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined >>> with the trivial change may now trigger the trivial change commit >>> earlier than it would have occurred otherwise. >> >> if you look at my commit behavior, this is exactly the sort of thing i >> avoid. >> my cvs commits are pretty logically clean to the point where importing >> into git would result in nice behavior. which means i make one commit >> to remove, one commit to fix a specific bug, one commit to version bump, >> etc... > > Good point and exactly the behavior best on git as it makes for far > easier and more effective git bisects when necessary. Unfortunately (for > oh so many reasons!!), Gentoo's main tree and workflow isn't "git-ified" > yet. But I can certainly commend someone whose personal standards demand > that same one-thing-and-one-thing-only commit separation, modern dVCS or > not. > > Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters. My last > post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on RHEL. > He was missing the libdbusmenu-qt dependency, which I was able to point > out, and I went on to describe the version info. Gentoo's kdelibs-4.6.4 > dependency for that library is >= libdbusmenu-qt-0.3.2, but I have 0.8.2 > installed. > > Because the information was in the changelog, I was able to tell him that > my current 0.8.2 was introduced in April, the other available version on > gentoo, 0.6.2, was introduced in Sept. 2010, there was a version jump (at > least on gentoo) between 0.3.5 (from June, 2010) and 0.6.2, and the 0.3.2 > that's gentoo's minimum requirement was introduced on Gentoo in April > 2010 and removed in Sept, 2010. So even 0.3.2 isn't much more than a > year old (on RHEL 5 it's likely an upgrade!), but was already considered > old enough to remove ~6 months later. > > That information on 0.3.2 removal wouldn't have been available to me (at > least not without making a huge project of it, checking Gentoo's viewCVS > logs on the web) had someone not put it in the changelog. Users DO find > that information useful and there have been quite a number of times I > personally have found it useful in helping people not necessarily on > gentoo (tho I believe I've spotted hugely outdated based on changelogs > versions of packages on gentoo-users systems, too), but in other parts of > the FLOSS community. > > Having that information not available locally on my system, either by > changelog as now, or by git whatchanged, if users finally get access to > direct git-pull once the main tree is git-upgraded, would be a serious > regression. >
I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?