On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:11 PM Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 7:18 AM Remi Collet <Fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > There are different: > > > > * Changelog is for end user > > * Git log is for package maintainer > > I completely agree with this distinction. We're creating more "noise" > for end users if we end up adding all the "whoops" commits into the > %changelog. And asking maintainers to add "[skip]" strings or whatever > into the Git commit logs adds yet another magic/manual thing that > packagers must learn. > > This is why rdopkg writes the dist-git commit messages from the RPM > %changelog instead of the other way around. For example I can write or > modify my message in %changelog, run "rdopkg amend", and it > automatically updates my dist-git message to match what I wrote in > %changelog. I have not had to copy-and-paste information from > %changelog into the dist-git message in years. > fedpkg will do the same thing if you use "fedpkg ci -c" (or if you love long forms: "fedpkg commit --with-changelog"). > > > * committing to git should build the package > > > > > > Is there a reason why this wouldn't be the case? > > > > Yes, because I often commit various changse "before" the build > > (some being cherry-pick on other branch, some not) > > This one I happen to disagree with. I've set up a Jenkins job that > automatically builds on another (non-Fedora) Koji instance for a large > number of packages, and it is fantastic to never worry about > remembering to run "rpkg build" by hand any more. I trigger the builds > on the "push" bus messages though, instead of building every single > commit. If I'm making many small changes, then I'll commit them all to > Git locally, then push them all at once. When other developers don't > follow that practice of batching up their commit pushes, it does mean > that Koji ends up building a lot more frequently, and we trigger > composes more frequently throughout each day... but frankly that leads > to some other advantages, because it makes things more "continuous" > overall. > Exactly. And the vast majority of packagers do largely atomic changes, so it's really not going to be a huge deal if we get some rejected build requests because the NVR hasn't changed yet. > > IMHO, remember KISS, and don't try to add more magic to our tooling > > > > And I really prefer to see stabilization of our current tools and > > infrastructure before breaking it again. > > I completely agree with this Remi. We're still suffering from the loss > of pkgdb's features. I would prefer to fix what's broken before trying > to mess with changelogs and end up with something half-baked. > *sigh* -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
