On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 11:59 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > > The dist-git changelogs are mostly noise and I would prefer better > > organized information about impacts to users and developers. Like > > tell > > me what things changed in the new glibc package, not that the glibc > > RPM > > has been upgraded to the new release. I can figure out that part > > myself. > > As an alternative perspective on this, I am *constantly* frustrated > by > the lack of detail in SCM commit messages, and would much prefer far > more of it. I frequently find myself wanting to know exactly why > someone did something seven years ago, and find it entirely > impossible > to answer the question from the information available. As well as %changelog, there's this wonderful other syntactical construct in rpm spec files called a "comment" ;-) Joking aside, and I haven't done much packaging in some time, but back in the day I was always struck my how terse most specfiles seemed to be, and I made a point of trying to properly comment mine. I think some of this may be the result of dealing with frustrating build issues: "yes! it finally worked, commit it and move on!" Specfiles are code, and IMHO ought to be commented, following the usual best-practices for code comments. If nothing else, a bug ID is way better than nothing - or a URL to a discussion - but ideally summarize the rationale for anything surprising in a comment. It's not an obfuscated code competition. Hope this is constructive Dave _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
