On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 00:55 -0400, 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? There are many reasons for doing so, e.g. * dead/non-responsive upstream * upstream has adopted patch, but hasn't released a new tarball, since. * patches lack generality/are RH/Fedora-specific hacks. * patches contain experimental features. ... Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
