On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 10:00, David Kaufmann <astra@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 08:08:49AM +0100, Dan Čermák wrote:
> > For the changelog: yes please, generate it from the commit log! They are
> > more or less the same for all my packages and I'm getting tired of copy
> > pasting the same text into %changelog and git commit.
>
> Another idea would be generating a changelog-entry from git history when
> creating an update in bodhi, and there is no pre-existing
> changelog-entry for the current version.
>
> This would not break the option to build a package from just one file.
> Having it all in one file is a big bonus to fedora, you can just
> download that file and build your package and not worry about the whole
> git-workflow, or having to check if you downloaded all files (not
> completely true in case of patch files).
Yes, I also thing having all relevant information in a single file is
a nice feature.
At the same time, usually you need to download/clone the whole repository
to build the package.
>
> It also would remove the need to copy messages from git log to the
> changelog. (some people complained about that - not only this message)
But Bodhi changelogs is not what user can read on his/her machine when
examining e.g. dnf check-update --changelogs. These are imho rpm
changelogs. So the rpm spec changelogs are the most important.
>
>
> I'm also not really a fan of "git as single source of truth" (has been
> mentioned a few times in this thread) - for me git is just a tool
> ensuring that git history was not modified.
>
> The *actual* source of truth is still the .spec file in the commit that is
> used to build the package - nobody is ever looking at old commits except
> for checking for malicious changes. (at least for spec files, with code
> it is useful for bisecting bugs).
>
>
> For end-users it might be useful to get the changelog alone (for that it
> does not matter if it is generated or copied from the .spec), but I
> never had any use for the changelog without the .spec file, as this
> gives me the context to the changes in the .spec file.
>
> But after all I do not care too much about how changelog is created, as
> long as the previous functionality is still preserved - my git log
> messages contain information about the .spec file changes while the
> changelog contains changes about the functionality of the package.
> ("what have I changed" (git) vs. "what has changed for you" (cl))
I think it is a great point. Commit message very often just say something
like new upstream release. In the final changelog it would be nice to
additionally e.g. provide a link to the upstream release summary - but
it's also more work.
Anyway, the messages will change if you really try to explain to user
what has changed. That's true.
>
> All the best,
> Astra
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
