On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:21:20 +0000, Jóhann wrote: > For the record the change log and reference to bug fixes either in our > bugzilla or upstream > are extremely useful information for at least testers,triagers and other > developers to monitor. Maybe. Maybe they are useful. What problem does it fix, though? There is not much testing activity outside of bugzilla PRs. And the triagers still touch bugzilla tickets without reading any part of it. If, however, you want to raise criticism about specific RPM %changelog entries, let's discuss some examples first. > So please contain either an http url to the upstream changelog file or an > file:///usr/share/doc/<component>/changelog at least in the rawhide and > updates-testing report. Why? You can visit the upstream URL and hunt for news there if you have strong/reasonable interest in a package. You can download the src.rpm and examine the upstream tarball contents, or you can skim over the %doc files included in the binary rpms. The stronger your interest in a package, the more you ought to volunteer as a package co-maintainer. Preferably we have a good mix of power-users and package maintainers for every Fedora package. > Both the http an file url are easy to use click able solutions. The file URI is useless IMO. For uninstalled packages it points to a non-existant file. A web page URL adds maintenance overhead just like the "Source" URLs, btw. There are locations, which change silently, whereas a package maintainer notices changes in the update tarball. > And please do not remove the reference to a report(s) in bugzilla Most package maintainers mention bz ticket numbers in the %changelog. That is more than enough. > This tell testers absolutely nothing > > - New upstream version > - Update to Both are good enough in a %changelog, as they sum up the only change that has been applied to the RPM package. If you're interested in details, look out for developer's ChangeLog (or NEWS files, e.g.). > - Lots of bug fixes That is a sufficient summary for a version upgrade, which is advertised as a bug-fix release. If the RPM package users have not submitted any PR, it seems they are not affected. > What does the new upstream/update version bring? > which feature(s)? Where upstream README or NEWS files, which can be included in a package as %doc files, don't cover such details, step up and become the upstream project's documentation writer. > which bug(s) got fixed? Monitor the upstream bug tracking system if you are seriously interested in such details. > Well you could of course provide testers with test cases each > time an new update/version is released instead of provide a reference to > the bug(s) that > are fixed and an url to the changelog so QA could come up with those > test cases if needed. You show a misunderstanding of what upstream maintainers and distribution package maintainers are supposed to do. Except for a few key packages in Fedora maybe, the majority of package maintainers have zero expectations with regard to any QA. There simply is no one to do such QA, not even WRT packages submitted as stable update requests. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
