On 09/15/14 15:30, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:53:43AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 14-09-2014 16:56:24 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
So, I don't really have a problem with your design. I still question
whether we still need to be generating changelogs - they seem
incredibly redundant. But, if people really want a redundant copy of
the git log, whatever...
I don't want them too. However, I'm pretty sure people will bikeshed
this to death if we kill them... Especially that rsync has no git log.
Not that many users make real use of ChangeLogs, esp. considering
how useless messages often are there...
Council had some discussions on this topic:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111108-summary.txt
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111011-summary.txt
Conclusion back then was that ChangeLog files need to stay.
I would have no problem with the council revisiting/changing this.
I tend to agree that the ChangeLogs in the portage tree will be
obsoleted when we switch to git because git's logging facilities are
much easier to use than those in CVS. Not to mention how much smaller
the portage tree would be without ChangeLogs.
William
If the argument is that there are no Changelogs in rsync, then let's
write git hooks to generate them when the repository is mirrored to the
rsync host. The only problem I see is with this is then adding
ChangeLog to the manifest and gpg signing it which has to be done at the
developer's side. But, I think the tree that users get from rsync
should have the logs. Having *both* a ChangeLog file and git log is
redundant.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail : bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
