On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 11:59 -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
> > The dist-git changelogs are mostly noise and I would prefer better
> > organized information about impacts to users and developers.  Like
> > tell
> > me what things changed in the new glibc package, not that the glibc
> > RPM
> > has been upgraded to the new release.  I can figure out that part
> > myself.
> As an alternative perspective on this, I am *constantly* frustrated
> by
> the lack of detail in SCM commit messages, and would much prefer far
> more of it. I frequently find myself wanting to know exactly why
> someone did something seven years ago, and find it entirely
> impossible
> to answer the question from the information available.

As well as %changelog, there's this wonderful other syntactical
construct in rpm spec files called a "comment" ;-)

Joking aside, and I haven't done much packaging in some time, but back
in the day I was always struck my how terse most specfiles seemed to
be, and I made a point of trying to properly comment mine.  I think
some of this may be the result of dealing with frustrating build
issues: "yes! it finally worked, commit it and move on!"

Specfiles are code, and IMHO ought to be commented, following the usual
best-practices for code comments.  If nothing else, a bug ID is way
better than nothing - or a URL to a discussion - but ideally summarize
the rationale for anything surprising in a comment.

It's not an obfuscated code competition.

Hope this is constructive
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to