Re: changelog format
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 08:59 +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:58:30PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:35:25AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 12:30:41AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > Well, we have not decided, the first [<author>] is thrown in by dch, and
> > > people are still using the same format as always, and maybe not always remove
> > > the [<author>] bit.
> > >
> > > Notice that the [<author>] part will probably become a standard all among
> > > debian as dch enforces it, so maybe it is worthwhile thinking about it.
> >
> > Yes, perhaps I should be attacking the root of the problem. See #326064.
> > Perhaps discussion of this is a bit premature until we hear back from the
> > devscripts people. Or perhaps we should avoid using dch, or provide our
> > own version of dch..
>
> I think going against the dch flow would be difficult.
>
How widespread is dch usage? I hadn't heard of it until this thread..
[...]
> >
> > IMHO, anyways. I think there's enough people scanning the kernel
> > changelogs for security bits and CAN numbers (the various teams, people
> > doing backports to older kernels, possibly other distributions, and so on)
> > that we want to emphasize that as much as possible.
>
> I'm all for more information than less.
> And I would really like to see the name of the patch or patches
> incoporated into the changelog entry, so there is a clear association
> between the description of a fix, and the code of a fix. Too many
> times I have hunted through packages and not had this, and been
> horribly frustrated.
>
I'm not saying not to include the information; I'm just saying to order
the most important fields first, so they stick out. If the fix is only
for a certain arch, by all means include that information in the
changelog entry.
Reply to: