On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 23:29 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > > You're right - no conclusion - but I guess I should put this to the > > packaging committee to get it added to the criteria - if we nuke > > everything but the last years worth from the %changelog and we do that > > as something useful to do for every release - then we'll be able to keep > > it pruned down and we'll still keep the history. > > > > People on the packaging committe - does that sound fair? > > > > -sv > > I'm always worried about making it harder to get the history related to > the running code... (I guess there's still always cvs history, but...) > > I'd like to see all changelog entries remain that are related to patches > still carried in the src.rpm - and not thrown away just because that > patch was added > 1 year ago. Much harder to automate, though... If > there's a policy that says I can trim my own changelogs with that > criteria, I'll gladly do it. (Maybe the automated trimmer could only > nuke old changelog entries if the changelog is above a certain size > threshold?) So my first question is this: Why are we carrying a patch for >1yr? Shouldn't it be being pushed to upstream? My only problem with letting the changelogs be cherry picked like this is b/c it is would be hard for people to know when to look elsewhere. Having the changelog difference be a hard number relative to the latest date in the package changelog would make it more consistent to know when to look elsewhere. Having a consistent location for what is 'elsewhere' is probably also good. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
