On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 at 13:40, Kevin Kofler via devel <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> tl;dr: you want to fix changelog entries. That's supported by saving the
> generated changelog to 'changelog' file and doing whatever edits you want
> there.
>
> With that approach, you can do arbitrary formatting and fixups. The
> advantage compared to status quo (non-autochangelog) is that you only need
> to do it if the autogenerated changelog is deficient for whatever reasons.
> In the default case you can use autochangelog, and fall back to the manual
> version when necessary.
[snip]
> Rpmautospec allows you to have a part or parts of a commit message that
> end up in the changelog, and parts that do not, see
> https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/autochangelog.html#changelog-entries-generated-from-commit-messages

All in all a very complicated and error-prone process just to save some
extremely lazy packagers a 5-second copy&paste. I really do not see why that
should be the default and recommended process.

The rules how to format the commit message are error-prone, and if you get
them wrong, you usually only notice when it is too late to fix it (because
force-pushes are not allowed). Yes, you can manually run "rpmautospec
generate-changelog", but that is actually no less effort than just taking
care of the changelog manually to begin with.

My main questions are what is this supposed to fix long term? 

I have guessed that it has to do with automation, the shrinking number of active packagers in operating systems, and the exploding number of packages in requested languages (Rust, Go, jq, etc). However, that is just a guess and it doesn't really say "HOW" this gets to dealing with this long term. It also isn't clear what the underlying remaining active packagers want to be part of. 



--
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren