Re: Merging between unstable and experimental; changelog handling
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Loïc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes:
> > I don't want changelog entries to be lost as they represent actual
> > uploads; hence, in the past, I've merged changelog entries between
> > experimental and unstable so that all experimental and unstable uploads
> > appear in the changelog of the latest version; this is sometimes weird
> > as it can shows two versions doing the same set of changes when we did
> > them separately.
> Which I think is a problem. I believe that changelog entries should only
> be merged when the related chages were merged. There is seldom more
> development on a stable (ie, uploaded to unstable) branch of a package
> than on the experimental version, so I think a useful way to handle
> this problem is to merge all changes made to the unstable version into
> the experimental version (and include the fitting changelog entries). If
> a package is moved from experimental to unstable, it should be done with
> svn mv [1].
So you want to keep experimental uploads in the unstable changelog? Or
do we edit the changelog after the svn mv to create a new unstable
version?
> I firmly believe that the changelog should only reflect development done
> on the branch that is actually uploaded, and not contain what was done
> to other branches. Remember, we do non-linear development, but
> changelogs only provide a linear way to represent changes, so we should
> document the actual line of development in the changelog of the package
> that we are uploading.
Sure, how does the proposal I made contradict the above?
--
Loïc Minier
"For subalterns, saying something intelligent is as risky as saying something
stupid."
Reply to: