Renaming packages, trimming changelog and re-starting revisions?

[Jon Ciesla]

On 05/13/2010 12:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:30:30AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>    
>> On 05/13/2010 11:13 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>      
>>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:12:39AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> On 05/13/2010 10:05 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> we recently started a relatively big rename of several packages
>>>>> (jakarta-commons). There seems to be inconsistency as far as changelog
>>>>> trimming and revision numbering goes. I could not find anything on that
>>>>> point on wiki.
>>>>>
>>>>> So:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Personally, I'd say. . .think really old is around three-
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> 1. Is is required to trim the changelog when renaming package?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Please don't, but do comment on the old name at the( relevant changelog
>>>> entry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Agreed -- I do trim changelogs of really old entries from my specs (4+
>>> years) once a year or so.  That's separate from renaming.
>>>
>>> -Toshoi
>>>
>>>        
>> Agreed?  I came out against trimming, not for.  I don't feel terribly
>> strongly about it, though.
>>
>>      
> Agreed as in: don't trim changelogs *because* you're renaming the package.
> But also pointing out that trimming changelogs is reasonable as long as you
> aren't treadingtoo closely to modern history.
>
> -Toshio
>    
Gotcha.  Yes, that's sane.

-J