Re: Change in my sponsorship requirements

[George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>]

On Sunday 15 July 2007, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Colin Tuckley <colin@tuckley.org> [2007.07.15.1618 +0200]:
> > No, I saw it and assumed that is what would happen in the case
> > where the uploads use ~r1 etc and the final upload to Debian by
> > the sponsor deleted the extra part of the revision.
> >
> > It's having all the changelog entries for the packaging *attempts*
> > in the final debian package that I'm objecting to.
>
> Yes, exactly. Each packaging attempt gets a separate changelog entry
> and when it's final, you merge them all, effectively erasing the
> history.

If I understand you correctly you mean a progress as follows:

=== Day 1 ===
packagename (1.0-1~unreleased.1) unstable; urgency=low

  * newbie change 1.

 -- John Doe <johndoe@debian.org>  Sun, 06 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200

=== Day 2 ===
packagename (1.0-1~unreleased.1) unstable; urgency=low

  * newbie change 2.

 -- John Doe <johndoe@debian.org>  Sun, 07 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200

packagename (1.0-1~unreleased.1) unstable; urgency=low

  * newbie change 1.

 -- John Doe <johndoe@debian.org>  Sun, 06 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200


=== Day 3 - ready to release === 
// merging all changelog rows in one changelog entry
packagename (1.0-1) unstable; urgency=low

  * newbie change 1.
  * newbie change 2.

 -- John Doe <johndoe@debian.org>  Sun, 08 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200


IMO, it is acceptable, but way too complicated and doesn't match completely 
the official procedure.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB