On Fri, 22 May 2020 20:10:55 +0000 Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > I'm pretty sure that either way, the committer should be the person > running lintian-brush.
Agreed. > Who or what the "author" of a particular change is less clear to me. > When somebody edits the control file with vim, we obviously don't > ascribe that to vim; if they reformat all files with wrap-and-sort, we > don't set the author to wrap-and-sort. At what point do we cross over? Its hard to say really. For wrap-and-sort I use Changes-by in the commit msg. > lintian-brush is fairly autonomous - it makes changes from start to > end, and I think that's probably what sets it apart from the other > tools I've mentioned. But isn't fully in the drivers' seat - the > committer decides when to run it and with what arguments. Perhaps that is what sets it apart from things like bots that automatically commit to git and push that to the canonical repo, there is always a human driving it and reviewing the commits it makes while the Debian Janitor does do autonomous commits when approved for that. So I think I'm now leaning towards just Changes-by for commits. > On a different note, what do attributed changes in debian/changelog > mean? Is it purely for credits? Are the names in the changelog people > one can talk to to understand why particular changes were made? Debian's documentation doesn't address this dch convention but I believe it functions as a mix of attribution and credit. I note that the Debian Janitor attributes itself in debian/changelog, so probably lintian-brush should too. Perhaps a debian-devel discussion is needed. https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#debian-changelog-debian-changelog https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.en.html#best-practices-for-debian-changelog -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
