Re: changelog format

[Horms <horms@debian.org>]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 12:28:22PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> 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..

I think you might be on your own there.
I certainly use it, always. Mainly because
it does the date thing for the changelog
entry right.

That said, I'm happy not to use it, or
to follow some different format when
using it. But, IMHO dcc-style formating
will creep in.

> [...]
> > >     
> > > 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.

Understood. In that case I'm entirely happy.

-- 
Horms