On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 11:58 +0200, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote: > >> With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly > >> pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time to > >> fullfill your solely burecratic demands. > > > > I just think they will keep doing the same... > > > > What else ? Filling bug report for every changelog not correctly > > formed ? That's not an option. > > And since we are a group of volunteers IMHO what should be done is > > advertised that it is advice to write down something which make sense > > and explain why it should be done and who uses it. > > You can't do anything else... > > Being a group of volunteers doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for more quality. Did I say the contrary ? > If the update isn't worth at least giving a link to the changelog / > fixed bugs, is it worth pushing as an update? What I meant is that there is no way to make things mandatory so it won't change from what is now. People who wants to write an extensive changelog will and people who don't want won't. Btw IMHO changelog on the spec reflects change that happened to the packaging (change in the spec) they do not reflect the change happened to the software (changes documented in the changelog in the sources when there is one). But I think Michael Schwendt already made my point. Best regards, Pierre -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
