On Thu March 6 2008, Debarshi Ray wrote: > Shame on me that I never cared to look at common/Makefile.common. > There are a lot of cool things there. :-) > > However, since we already have 'make clog', what is stopping us from > having a 'make commit'? In my limited view, if one is creating a clog Someone needs to write a patch, submit it to fedora-infrastructure-list and maybe send a reminder in case the patch was not commited to Makefile.common. > then he is almost certain to commit to the VCS. It is almost as if > clog is redundant. Why would I want to have the topmost entry of the > changelog in a separate file, even when I have the entire changelog in > the Spec, and not make a commit? Maybe someone wants to edit the clog file before commit, e.g. because not every change in the specs changelog was done in the current commit, but maybe something earlier. Or for some reason something else should be added. > edit foo.spec > make commit tag build > # discover error > edit foo.spec > make commit force-tag build > > Till now we have assumed that every commit will have a new changelog > entry which can be associated with that commit. Have we considered the > odd commit that a packager might make to fix some trivial issue (eg., > tabs/spaces) that does not warrant a tag, build, update or a separate > entry in the %changelog? I do not see what the problem here is. It is possible to run "make commit" without doing a tag and build. Regards, Till
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
