Trim ChangeLogs?

[Carlos O'Donell]

Siddhesh,

Would you be opposed to moving all ChaneLogs from
2013 and earlier into a ChangeLog.old file, thus pruning
the %changelog section in the glibc.spec file?

I can't see anyone using this actively in the rpm,
but leaving it in a checked in file e.g. ChangeLog
means we can look at it later. It solves the onerous
problem that no matter what you search for in the file
you're bound to find that word or text in the ChangeLog
and that's getting annoying and old.

If nobody objects I'll prune the glibc.spec file and
move the old data into a ChangeLog.old file.

Cheers,
Carlos.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:32:36AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>  Would you be opposed to moving all ChaneLogs from
>  2013 and earlier into a ChangeLog.old file, thus pruning
>  the %changelog section in the glibc.spec file?
>  
>  I can't see anyone using this actively in the rpm,
>  but leaving it in a checked in file e.g. ChangeLog
>  means we can look at it later. It solves the onerous
>  problem that no matter what you search for in the file
>  you're bound to find that word or text in the ChangeLog
>  and that's getting annoying and old.
>  
>  If nobody objects I'll prune the glibc.spec file and
>  move the old data into a ChangeLog.old file. 
I was confused for a moment about whether you meant the ChangeLog file
in our sources or the %changelog section in the specfile; I assume you
meant the latter.  That information comes up in 'rpm -q --changelog
glibc', so I am not sure if it's kosher to do so.  You might want to
check if it's allowed according to the Fedora packaging guidelines or
even easier, ask on the fedora-packaging list.

Siddhesh

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 09/01/2014 12:42 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>  On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:32:36AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > Would you be opposed to moving all ChaneLogs from
> > 2013 and earlier into a ChangeLog.old file, thus pruning
> > the %changelog section in the glibc.spec file?
> >
> > I can't see anyone using this actively in the rpm,
> > but leaving it in a checked in file e.g. ChangeLog
> > means we can look at it later. It solves the onerous
> > problem that no matter what you search for in the file
> > you're bound to find that word or text in the ChangeLog
> > and that's getting annoying and old.
> >
> > If nobody objects I'll prune the glibc.spec file and
> > move the old data into a ChangeLog.old file.
>  
>  I was confused for a moment about whether you meant the ChangeLog file
>  in our sources or the %changelog section in the specfile; I assume you
>  meant the latter.  That information comes up in 'rpm -q --changelog
>  glibc', so I am not sure if it's kosher to do so.  You might want to
>  check if it's allowed according to the Fedora packaging guidelines or
>  even easier, ask on the fedora-packaging list. 
I mean the latter, prune %changelog.

I asked several developers and they all prune their %changelog.

The Packaging Guidelines does not forbid %changelog pruning.

I'll go ahead and do the pruning, moving the old entries to a new file.

Cheers,
Carlos.