On Sunday 15 July 2007, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Colin Tuckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun, 06 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200 === Day 2 === packagename (1.0-1~unreleased.1) unstable; urgency=low * newbie change 2. -- John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun, 07 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200 packagename (1.0-1~unreleased.1) unstable; urgency=low * newbie change 1. -- John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
