On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 15:47, Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:28 PM Iñaki Ucar <iucar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So someone wanted to use rpmautospec and was willing to do the work, putting things together as an opt-in feature. Perfect.
>
> Now, I don't see any problem if some time later someone revisits the topic and proposes to go further. I don't see anything unfriendly here. Everything was set or decided at some point, and nothing could ever be changed if we don't allow ourselves to change our minds and be free to make new proposals.
>
> That said, we are also free to reject those proposals, and I'm -1 here. As of today, I think it's fine as an opt-in feature, and I'm even using it for some small uncomplicated packages. But I don't think it should be the default with an opt-out.
It is already supposed to be default / preferred since this Fedora 38 Change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
Described as preferred in the docs != default. Also versioning and changelog are described separately, so some could use autochangelog but not autorelease, or the other way around, or not at all. In the same way that one could use autosetup or not. But here it has been proposed that autochangelog + autorelease are not options anymore, and that you would need to add a file to the repo to opt-out. -1 to this. The current status is fine for me.
Iñaki Úcar
-- _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
