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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]