On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 00:55 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > >Now that I look at the voluminous output, I'm less sure that we want > >the CVS log in the RPM. I think your current dummied-up %changelog > >is perhaps more useful. > > > > > I think dummying up the change log might be the wrong solution here. > Changelog should be split up from the RPM spec and stored seperately. > File a enhancement request? This is really a process change and not a bug, but as James has already made this suggestion on list, it's probably a good idea to discuss it here. Specifically, does doing this create any extra burdens on authors or editors, or should the ChangeLog file (to feed the RPM %changelog) simply include packaging-specific information? I would prefer the latter to avoid needless duplication of work. In other words, although the CVS log and/or revision history might have entries with info like this: - style changes - push to version x.y.z, move to final editorial ...the ChangeLog file would instead only include packaging specific entries or things which have nothing to do with the CVS content (much like code packages): - Update to x.y.z - Fix OMF file Comments? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
