[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dchanges change suggestions

Bruce Perens writes ("Re: dchanges change suggestions "):
> I am withdrawing the request that package upload announcements be
> machine-readable. They may now be free-form. I'm sick of this stupid
> argument.

You're the FTP site maintainer, and you have to live with this stuff
(the format that's mailed to you) much more than the rest of us, so I
think we ought to do as you want, not as you say here.

So ner.

Bill Mitchell writes ("dchanges (Was:  Re: Enough is enough)"):
> Bruce said:
> > > Meanwhile, I suggest that Ian J. and myself work out the dchanges 
> > > file format issues offline, and then one of us uploads a replacement 
> > > dchanges package.
> > 
> > That sounds excellent to me.
> Suppose I together the results of today's exchanges into a new example
> dchanges output file and some notes on it, and send that to you for
> comment.  Unless there's been a serious disconnect, we're not far
> apart.  If there has been a serious disconnect, what I send you should
> expose it.
> If what I send you is close, I can update the dchanges package.  If not,
> we can discuss whether I implement changes sufficient to satisfy you or
> you take the package over and do whatever you want with it.

Bill has now sent me an example, and I think we can work all this out.
(Sorry, I've been busy the past day or two and not very responsive on
this thread.)  Bill, you'll get detailed mail from me after I've
finished this one.

I'd like Bill to continue to maintain dchanges.

Bill: would you be willing to write and/or maintain a format converter
from the dchanges format to my format ?

I can write it if you prefer, but I think it belongs together with
dchanges in some sense.

I'll write a program to parse changelogs in my format and run dchanges
in some appropriate way, and send that to Bill.  Bill, would you be
happy about including that in dchanges ?

Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: dchanges change suggestions"):
> Ian Murdock <imurdock@debian.org> said:
> > [ he wants `ls' output in the announcements ]
> This screws up the otherwise regular { Field [ field_extension ] } [...]
> file structure.  However, I get the point about md5sum, and I understand
> your argument regarding ls.

How about indenting it all (the md5sum and ls stuff) by a single space
when it is in the machine-readable dchanges output format ?  When the
user actually sees it in the announcement it'll have the intentation
removed.  This will avoid having to make a special case for it and
breaking the simplicity of the dchanges format (which Bruce and you
seem to be pushing for), and will still give users a format that they
can use easily (which is what Ian and I are after).


Reply to: