On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 11:29 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On Út, 2014-01-14 at 13:13 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > 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. > > I'd recommend rather the approach suggested by Kevin. Bump the release > and include a regular changelog entry. Just do not build. There is no > rule that all changeloged entries must be really built. I have found this kind of phantom release a bit annoying in some really esoteric situations - when the changelog indicates that there was, say, a 1.2-6 build, but there never was, only 1.2-5 and 1.2-7 - but most of the time it's not going to be a problem, yeah. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
