On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 13:57 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:40:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > That's pretty much the exact *opposite* of what I put in the changelog, > > FWIW. > > It is no news that in recent years some people have pushed their own > agenda about what to put into which changelog. I can't do anything about > that. > > > For me, that stuff goes in the git commit message > > You don't use "fedpkg clog"? Nope. I hand write every type of changelog (upstream changelog, package changelog, git commit message, Bodhi description). > > fill in is *why*). What goes in the package changelog is changes that > > actually make a concrete difference to a *user* of the package. They > > don't give a damn about the BuildRequires changing. > > Rest assured, they do care, because added/removed BuildRequires might > enable/disable features, change behavior due to using different > backend libs, affect the look and feel or cause regression (such as > when building with gtk3 instead of gtk2 or vice versa). Then in relevant cases I'd write about *that*. I wouldn't say "changed BuildRequires: gtk2-devel to BuildRequires: gtk3-devel". I'd say "Build against GTK+ 3", and maybe break out any known specific functionality changes that caused in additional lines. But if all I did was add an additional BuildRequires that upstream now needs for the test suite to work or whatever, I'm not going to mention that in the package changelog, it goes in the commit message, for me. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
