On 05/21/2012 12:27 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 10:23 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/21/2012 09:56 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:07:56PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
And definitvely, for me, (and probably only for me), git is
really
not a good tool for spec maintenance.
Not duplicating the changelog would help. There's little reason
to
have a changelog in git which is then manually copied into
%changelog.
+1, for me - GIT is the authority for change logs, not SPEC...
-1 changelogs are manually written documents and source files.
A database's (git), temporary meta information is irrelvant.
+1, the changelog is available to the user through an rpm query which
is
essential and useful to covey what has has been done.
I'm trying to backport most important changes to changelog from GIT
but usually the GIT log is where I look to get the real changes...
IMO, there are major differences between git commit logs and an rpm's
%changelogs.
The number one difference being the target audience:
package maintainers vs. rpm users.
Technically, the major difference is git recording each and every
detail, which an rpm's user hardly is interested in. The latter audience
is not interested in seeing these details, they are interesting in
"summaries".
E.g. they are not interested in seeing
........ ABC-3
... Fix memory leak (PR XYZ).
... merge from HEAD.
... merge cleanup.
... fix typo in previous commit.
... fix yet another typo.
........ ABC-2
... Upstream update.
They are interested in reading
........ ABC-3
... Fix memory leak (PR XYZ).
........ ABC-2
... Upstream update.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
