seth vidal wrote: > 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? What if upstream is releasing slowly? There may be other valid reasons. (there may be lots of bad reasons too) -Eric -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
