Re: Branching changelogs or not
On Sun, Feb 06 2011, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> 2. Whether upstream changelogs should be copied fully or in
> parts copied into Debian changelog and I think the New
> maintainers guide[3] gives a clear answer to mention only
> the changes of this *new* release specifically if these are
> closing known bugs in Debian and not just random features
> of the new release and definitely not changes of old
> releases.
My take on this has been that we should do what is most
important for the users: The changelog can be presented to the users on
upgrade, and when users chose to see it, and in those cases the users
arepresented with an option to abort the upgrade. The other audience
for the changelog entry us people looking into it in /usr/doc, and
perhaps fr dignificant changes or feature addtions; and lastly, the
future maintainers.
I would suggest we copy over from the upstream changelog any
information that might be relevant to the users; and that does mean
major features and significant changes, specifically backwards
incompatible changes.
So I tend to favour a changelog by changelog decision, not a
hard ruling one way or the other.
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2011/02/msg00048.html
> [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-update.en.html#s-newupstream
> [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2010/12/msg01054.html
manoj
almost through the long tunnel with the legal department
--
Comedy, like Medicine, was never meant to be practiced by the general
public.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C
Reply to: