On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:41 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain. >> These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a >> new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can >> imagine a couple of issues: >> >> - A provenpackager could kick off a rebuild for whatever reason (e.g. >> dependency soname bump). That will (I think) inadvertently include my >> changes. > > Yes, this will happen. Why do you think it's a problem, though? If your > changes are correct but you just don't think it's worth doing a new > build simply for them, why is it a problem if they get pulled in when > someone does another build for some *other* (presumably appropriate) > reason? It would seem like that's just what you'd want to happen. Depends how well I've tested. I'd like to imagine that I never commit anything broken anywhere, but this is empirically incorrect -- I break development branches on a semi-regular basis. I guess I'll just have to be more cautious w/ Fedora :) > >> - I need to think about whether to add a changelog entry or not. If >> not, those changes might be included silently. If yes, then I need to >> think about what to do about the revision number. > > One thing I've seen done is to add the line that actually describes the > change, above the last date/builder/NEVR line, *without* adding a new > line identifying the new build, date and builder. That way when someone > comes along and does a new build, they ought to see what should happen - > they should roll your partial entry into the entry they add for the > build. That would work. --Andy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
