On 04/19/2013 09:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On 19/04/13 06:16 PM, Alex G. wrote: >> On 04/15/2013 05:30 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: >>> Is there any guidance as when to trim %changelog down to size? Some >>> packages have thousands of lines of spec file dating back over 15 >>> years which seem kinda redundant now we're using git. >>> >> >> I've always seen the %changelog as a relic from times when we didn't >> have reliable source SCMs. For me, it is redundant (and boring) to have >> to update the %changelog, while I have the exact same information in the >> git history. >> >> I think the best way to go is to obsolete %changelog, and extract the >> changelog directly from git history. I don't care as much about how far >> back it should go. As far as knowing the package version (i.e. 1.2.3-6) >> for each commit, that can easily be handled with a git hook. >> >> So, why bother putting similar information in two places when there are >> better ways to go? > > Thanks - I just won a small bet with myself as to when this thread would > circle back to that discussion yet again... I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the discussion is circular. I might have been vague when I said "extract". What I meant was to - [have 'fedpkg build' automatically] create a changelog from the git history - include that changelog in the rpm headers - the changelog is visible with 'rpm -q --changelog'. Now both %changelog lovers and git lovers are happy campers. Anyway, I see my argument will be going nowhere pretty soon. Best wishes, Alex -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
