Re: fs-uae_2.4.1+ds-2~bpo70+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Peter Palfrader <weasel@debian.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 May 2014, Romain Francoise wrote:
>> >
>> >> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Argh, forgot the -v option for debbuild. Fixed upload will be
>> >> > there in a minute.
>> >>
>> >> Hopefully some day the lintian patch in #732225 will get picked up and
>> >> this won't happen anymore...
>> >
>> > Or we could just get rid of this nonsensical, make-work requirement.
>>
>> To be honest, I've never understood the purpose of the "include
>> changelog entries since stable in your .changes" rule. The only place
>> where they're visible is debian-backports-changes@l.d.o; what
>> difference does it make to subscribers of that list if _all_ changelog
>> entries since stable are sent to the list or not, and is it worth the
>> extra cost and hassle (in terms of additional developer time spent on
>> re-uploading packages that fail this requirement)?
> There are several users reading the changes list to see what changed in a
> backport. Same counts for me (ftpmaster) when reviewing packages.
> A few months ago I made a survey if we should remove that requirement but it
> had no majority.
I must have missed that particular survey, then...
It's certainly not the only way to see changes done in a backport
(fetching the changelog manually does the job equally well, although
it is less convenient). I guess the question to be answered here is
whether the frustration and time lost due to the "-v" requirement is
worth the added convenience of having a full set of changes sent to
the list for each upload.
Just curious, as backports ftpmaster, do you think that (the
possibility of) having to reject packages multiple times (and the cost
in terms of additional time spent reviewing the queue, and frustration
from having to repeat this over and over again) outweigh the benefits?
Regards,
Vincent
Reply to: