On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 03:27:15PM -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Well, yes, that parallel came up in my mind too, but really, the two >> > aren't particularly similar. I don't think there's any intent to >> > obfuscate in the case of the glibc spec, it's simply done the way that >> > seemed convenient to its maintainers at the time. Note the Fedora kernel >> > package is a normal source / split out patches set. I'm not sure that >> > whole kerfuffle is particularly relevant to Fedora. >> > >> > >> Let me turn that on its head. >> >> As more projects become git based over time, the preferred form for code >> development might actually be a bisectable git checkout and not broken out >> patchsets for some projects. I'm not sure the distribution and packaging >> model that we collectively understand now and which grew up in the cvs and >> svn dominated era fits really well in the git dominated era. I think we are >> still groping around trying to figure out what the "preferred form" really >> is in the git dominated era. I'm not sure the broken out patchset will be >> it. It might soon be considered a legacy format in some situations. > > While I agree with you, the glibc "big blob of patch" approach > isn't in either of the preferred forms. > > Wishlist item: > > At the same time that RPM allows you to bundle a git repo, perhaps we > can finally get rid of %changelog? %changelog isn't for developers. It's for users to see what the developers changed in the package. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
