[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#859778: RFS: xtrs/4.9d-3



Hello Branden,

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 03:41:48PM -0400, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 1) How about merging the -1, -2 and -3~~unreleased changelog entries
> > into a single entry, since we're doing a single upload?
> 
> Won't that prompt the question of what happened to -1 and -2?
> 
> Or do you mean renumber -3 as -1?  And move the git tags?

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 04:12:38PM -0400, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hmm, did you notice that:
>
> 1) Almost all the changes to upstream code are in release -3?
> and
> 2) Almost all the changes to packaging are in releases -1 and -2?
>
> So, to be clear, you're asking me to coalesce all the changelog entries
> since 4.9c together and then split them up in a different way, which
> less accurately reflects the actual history of recent development?
>
> Can you explain your reasoning here?

Currently, almost all Debian packagers/maintainers use one changelog
entry and version number per upload.  So if there are rounds of review
in an RFS, new changes are folded into the previous changelog entry.

My concern is simply that it could be misleading to break this
convention.  Someone might think that there were -1, -2 and -3 uploads
to the archive.

Jumping straight to -3 could also be confusing, so it would probably be
best to merge the changes in -3 and -2 into -1.

The actual history of development is available from the git history,
which I will push to https://browse.dgit.debian.org/ as part of the
upload.  So we're not throwing away any information.

I guess that the older practice of using a new version number for each
round of review is due to the difficulties created by exchanging raw
source packages.  But we are using git.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 03:41:48PM -0400, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Also, could you confirm that your changes have been forwarded upstream?
>
> Yes, I emailed some of them to Tim Mann on 3 April, and the rest on 17
> April.  I think there were some cosmetic changes to the man pages after
> that.

Great.  Thanks for confirming.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: