>>> * Obviate the need to keep two changelogs in sync
>> That's solved by a one (middle) click paste or by solutions like
"make clog" or
>> the proposed "make commit". I don't see the real problem there either.
> Even with "make commit", there are still two separate changelogs, and
> they will be out of sync. We really don't want more than one way to do
> things.
Although quite a few projects use things like 'git log' to generate
the ChangeLog, many still keep them in sync manually. In our case, I
prefer to write the Spec manually and let the rest sort themselves out
either manually or in some other automated way. Apart from the other
reasons that I had mentioned, here is another one.
Suppose Foo Bar submits a review request. The package is not yet in
the CVS so she does not have ready access to the proposed targets
which will generate a %changelog for her. So he does it manually
althrough the review process, but when he imports it into the CVS he
is recommended to remove all the handwritten stuff, because when he
commits, the scripts are going to overwrite all the manually written
stuff. Is it not messy?
Cheerio,
Debarshi
--
"From what we get, we can make a living; what we give, however, makes a life."
-- Arthur Ashe
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
