Re: changelogs in packages and space use
seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 23:29 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
>
>> You're right - no conclusion - but I guess I should put this to the
>> packaging committee to get it added to the criteria - if we nuke
>> everything but the last years worth from the %changelog and we do that
>> as something useful to do for every release - then we'll be able to keep
>> it pruned down and we'll still keep the history.
>>
>> People on the packaging committe - does that sound fair?
>>
>> -sv
> I'm always worried about making it harder to get the history related to
> the running code... (I guess there's still always cvs history, but...)
>
> I'd like to see all changelog entries remain that are related to patches
> still carried in the src.rpm - and not thrown away just because that
> patch was added > 1 year ago. Much harder to automate, though... If
> there's a policy that says I can trim my own changelogs with that
> criteria, I'll gladly do it. (Maybe the automated trimmer could only
> nuke old changelog entries if the changelog is above a certain size
> threshold?)
So my first question is this: Why are we carrying a patch for >1yr?
Shouldn't it be being pushed to upstream?
What if upstream is releasing slowly? There may be other valid reasons.
(there may be lots of bad reasons too)
-Eric