Le mercredi 05 juillet 2006 à 16:50 -0400, seth vidal a écrit : > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 16:44 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 04:13:32PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > I've read the guidelines and I don't see where it mandates the format of > > > the changelog lines. > > > > If it's worth anything at all, as a sysadmin, I find having (e:)v-r > > information in the changelog to be incredibly useful. > > why? the date tells me more b/c at least that has _something_ to do with > the versions, etc. When you compare two systems, the date is worthless and the (e:)v-r pure gold. (e:)v-r will tell you when devel and update packages where synced for example. Date will tell you "these two package where produced at about the same time". It won't tell you if one was based on a three-years-old fork and the other on current upstream snapshot. (and sure you can find the info with a little archeology but that's not the point. When I see two changelogs with the same (e:)v-r and different comments I know the packages have diverged. When I see two changelogs with the same date and different comments - are the packages diverging or the maintainer holding up an patch for one branch till it's ready?) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
