On 06/01/2011 06:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 01/06/2011 04:08 ¼¼, Peter Volkov wrote:
>> =4, 30/05/2011 2 14:55 -0700, Brian Harring ?8H5B:
>>> The problem is, that's a *fuzzy* definition.
>
>> Ok, let's start with something and then we'll add more items if
>> required. Currently I'd like to propose following text:
>
>> The ChangeLog must be updated with each commit. The only possible
>> relaxations for this rule are:
>
>> 1. Nonfunctional whitespace changes
>> 2. Changes in comments (lines starting with # in ebuild, or leading text
>> in patches)
>> 3. Manifest updates
>> 4. Changes in ChageLog itself ;)
>
>> Something unclear? Anything else?
>
>> --
>> Peter.
> Maybe typos in e{log,warn,info} messages and/or typos in general (
> variables, functions etc )
>
And the list will grow...
If we don't want to start monitoring also the context of ChangeLog entries,
Like if someone adds a epatch line to fix a real bug in a ebuild but
while at it fixes ebuild Coding Style for repoman/pcheck/and so forth,
fails to mention it in the log.
How is that different from committing just the Coding Style fix and then
leaving it out of ChangeLog?
Wouldn't it be better to just trust devs to use common sense in what
gets into ChangeLogs, and actually be grateful about if they take the
time to sensor the crap out from it, and scrap the whole topic?
(I honestly can't remember being involved in anything this useless...)
- Samuli
