On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 06:47:52PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> David is correct that updating the changelog is not a mandatory part
> of the review process, but at the same time it can be (and is often)
> very helpful. I've seen many reviewers request that the changelog is
> updated during the review process. For all of my review requests I
> increment the Release tag and add a changelog entry. It makes it then
> very easy to follow the evolution of the package. And for reviews that
> I perform myself, I always prefer packagers to increment Release and
> add a changelog entry.
> I'd say that if the reviewer assigns themselves to a review and
> requests nicely (as you have done) that the packager adds changelog
> entries for each change, then the packager should strive to do so,
> since making life easier for the reviewer can only be a good thing
> (especially since reviewing packages is often a thankless task).
Updating changelog during review seems a very good practice.
It is also a good indication of whether the packager is going to be a good
Fedora citizen or not. There's no harm to having the changelog entries and
new packagers that refuse to add them often argue about other things as
well or change things to be contrary to the guidelines once their package
has passed review.
I always require that packagers add changelog entries during package review
if I'm going to review and approve the package. (If the packager can find
someone else to review and approve their package with that attitude, I don't
object, though -- this usually oomes up with someone who needs to be
sponsored into the packager group. If some other packager wants to sponsor
and train an argumentative packager and reprimand them if they can't be
bothered to follow the guidelines later, that's the sponsor's problem.)