Changelog usage clarification

[Antonio Trande]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all.

I need a clarification about the Changelog section in a spec file
during a package review process.

In particular, pursuant to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs guidelines:

>  Every time you make changes, that is, whenever you increment the
E-V-R >of a package, add a changelog entry.
>  ... Changelog entries should provide a brief summary of the changes
>  done to the package between releases, including noting updating to
>  a new version, adding a patch, fixing other spec sections, note
>  bugs fixed, and CVE's if any 
In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966201, David says that
Changelog changes' list is not necessary during package review process
because it is still a "initial package" state.

For all my packages and not only, every one always asks me to update
the Changelog, also for a minimal modification in a package
pre-review/review process. To be sure and to resolve this issue with
David, I need some clarification regard to how to use properly the
Changelog section since the first package review submit.

Greetings.


- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter AT fedoraproject.org
www.fedora-os.org
GPG Key: D400D6C4
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRqMTHAAoJED2vIvfUANbEkDUP/RmG69AYhO4OyzDhkeqI+EW1
> 55OmsuFP6TuYaXsP3F5aFTiYFqIUrb2GtH58cWIX8Ou3jmUDjTZGbVKGgCa97O/W
> 7ONDTX2elc25ZdSoz9iehBOY/SafokRM8ZxSDUIWWzxCVnSrkygAw8fDnWIXEIoF
> lIC0pdt/B8BL/BY/2sxKJW8MSQT42LWp2ym67HpmPU3lTQLsJz/TUzFrRBl+fEi0
> AojmiT/EUGt1PWqMxvp/n2ASG29/VAag+8heiV7B/08xX+/W2pq1URPBBfO2YIf6
> VWQ1jBNHYs7lhvbOov3KKHLsZ57Mz2K8tTeCwHYEWBTOfuTiGbFy1OwuuhBLTQs9
> Yb6M8eXCiy646/cOXvNeUyE3Rp1Z5doJYB/Fr2fgXeBpVZa1sqDX8tfJrW1poRpb
> 97WXsn7Rs23QVu+eU5Dngh7ZJjNOnVHI31e9qVuUGnUnGHmDj3eVeKr0dyEIkZvI
> 7V3qpLJYwzXcS+Ugz8d+2CvMOqAzZ4fMZZz6sYGt5N4RGYboWdlhJtZezqhevAXS
> uzi9328o3RCJMg7dMGzCUAfNxzYLevFWEZ4D3fmpJGJvF4c8YFc/wqmuBLjS03Nq
> 6AESQsZ9tjAUbiO3FQni1zs95q6fRaQbT/K19kcaCbJxQDPNhhrafF4Rzqoe9FkT
> iG6dlsQKqNuBEZZ1HHbB
> =HLdP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jamie Nguyen]

On 31/05/13 16:42, Antonio wrote:
>  I need a clarification about the Changelog section in a spec file 
>  during a package review process.
>  
>  In particular, pursuant to 
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
>  guidelines:
>  
> > Every time you make changes, that is, whenever you increment the
>  E-V-R >of a package, add a changelog entry.
> > ... Changelog entries should provide a brief summary of the
> > changes done to the package between releases, including noting
> > updating to a new version, adding a patch, fixing other spec
> > sections, note bugs fixed, and CVE's if any
>  
>  In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966201, David says
>  that Changelog changes' list is not necessary during package review
>  process because it is still a "initial package" state.
>  
>  For all my packages and not only, every one always asks me to
>  update the Changelog, also for a minimal modification in a package 
>  pre-review/review process. To be sure and to resolve this issue
>  with David, I need some clarification regard to how to use properly
>  the Changelog section since the first package review submit. 
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).


Kind regards,

-- 
Jamie Nguyen

[Remi Collet]

Le 31/05/2013 17:57, Jamie Nguyen a écrit :
>  On 31/05/13 16:42, Antonio wrote:
> > I need a clarification about the Changelog section in a spec file 
> > during a package review process.
> >
> > In particular, pursuant to 
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
> > guidelines:
> >
> >> Every time you make changes, that is, whenever you increment the
> > E-V-R >of a package, add a changelog entry.
> >> ... Changelog entries should provide a brief summary of the
> >> changes done to the package between releases, including noting
> >> updating to a new version, adding a patch, fixing other spec
> >> sections, note bugs fixed, and CVE's if any
> >
> > In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966201, David says
> > that Changelog changes' list is not necessary during package review
> > process because it is still a "initial package" state.
> >
> > For all my packages and not only, every one always asks me to
> > update the Changelog, also for a minimal modification in a package 
> > pre-review/review process. To be sure and to resolve this issue
> > with David, I need some clarification regard to how to use properly
> > the Changelog section since the first package review submit.
>  
>  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).
>   
I agree.
Updating changelog during review seems a very good practice.

Remi.

>  
>  Kind regards,
>

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/31/2013 12:47 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
>  Le 31/05/2013 17:57, Jamie Nguyen a écrit :
> > On 31/05/13 16:42, Antonio wrote:
> >> I need a clarification about the Changelog section in a spec
> >> file during a package review process.
> >> 
> >> In particular, pursuant to 
> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs 
> >> guidelines:
> >> 
> >>> Every time you make changes, that is, whenever you increment
> >>> the
> >> E-V-R >of a package, add a changelog entry.
> >>> ... Changelog entries should provide a brief summary of the 
> >>> changes done to the package between releases, including
> >>> noting updating to a new version, adding a patch, fixing
> >>> other spec sections, note bugs fixed, and CVE's if any
> >> 
> >> In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966201, David
> >> says that Changelog changes' list is not necessary during
> >> package review process because it is still a "initial package"
> >> state.
> >> 
> >> For all my packages and not only, every one always asks me to 
> >> update the Changelog, also for a minimal modification in a
> >> package pre-review/review process. To be sure and to resolve
> >> this issue with David, I need some clarification regard to how
> >> to use properly the Changelog section since the first package
> >> review submit.
> > 
> > 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).
> > 
>  
>  I agree. Updating changelog during review seems a very good
>  practice.
>   
Yes, if nothing else it can help identify what has changed between
iterations on the review (especially if a review is taken over by a
new reviewer partway through).

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlGo2ScACgkQeiVVYja6o6OSywCgmKYNFhhfR8vHqA0BMb2k7Wv8
> XnIAn1v/fvmr+vJ6iHm7m5YrCEBh2d5l
> =NKPb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Toshio Kuratomi]

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).
>  > 
>  
>  I agree.
>  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.)

-Toshio

[Antonio Trande]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Thanks to all for the responses.

David, I think we can conclude doing a simple list of changes in
Changelog section; also because your package is rather elementary, it
didn't need a lot of work.
If you don't still agree, I have not any problem to leave the review to
someone else.


- --
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter AT fedoraproject.org
www.fedora-os.org
GPG Key: D400D6C4
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRqP45AAoJED2vIvfUANbEnv8P/1k+VAiusE0s6cKJXN4DjjHl
> c7xbLxbR+SkzFjNlRyM/AmKXlCh8JNbaWC9qYENyK6UOHHPg/K81kAxCm5/l8M47
> EbHntSWzMq1+l1ss3T8UiXuPqsxRNnmJtVc9aW1NoKSP45zJq6hVxGHMYdbQoFog
> R370fRaiZcyj9UU+6t9q+BJKv89av48R8KsDfuEs3XZFrSj+pmXwUfAwytAl5Xwf
> Vz/KfZlKaqg+Apu0M1RrisCsUQWvxebPk8RDqVgY4Bp98xXNWORbc3HAgpWla4OW
> 2XT7NZ+HIoOQAcDwIGPsw06onohWbDgJDQCjE2MV0Yw1sgFYj/B34VNiT5sdnJyb
> AACSkCQx/Z8MJm5K5k/57VwnH2hKJMQQXXCNKNgs8eiQyF2JDth8Og1SrzOYlQH3
> C4JyRL9d7yqVDexfqCcc+FZ1a8iDaCFDNx88b2y1IWT9DD/cBpaenmy9QqTKRE3A
> SlEJmoICn29fMu1N0ThrvJ/ssFeKJQ3xv0Qlz1wHkicJVz0kgYPgU80AUi+8TwR+
> PtXbgwgdtnfFwAKJdQToXSDMRgaRYlrsTOi1CBXWt7URwjxBD4JkbXkMp5apcVd7
> EUPuzqi8BsNT3c6kafSNw53l+eNBgZt0RxjN8RXUq5tGB1YXZPhXNXGq17ucv8HS
> qlEEoUXvLo3AofUdKOhx
> =YQNC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Antonio Trande]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/31/2013 09:47 PM, Antonio wrote:

>  If you don't still agree, I have not any problem to leave the
>  review to someone else.
>   
Errata corrige:

I mean ...
If you are not still agree, I have not any problem to leave the review
to someone else.

Sorry. :P

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter AT fedoraproject.org
www.fedora-os.org
GPG Key: D400D6C4
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRqxI3AAoJED2vIvfUANbE5zIP/3lVRQUPZpo1sYZDep6RpsU6
> ejHrVEKzTpB3g/u1uHg2KPQvlHvxR3p/r8Gy2pU/XKZPWLzB8Gsm/Y8ilPxhHPbh
> nrAGk1ygrl7BW+EN+xUkSGJMfzeOWtefsB9WD9xVBrzFKuCbVWphIdvNMBuwXMr9
> 63RWDoCj+BSHCxUJ/8KZVMHsqQnRIQo2OuTrmav1YRe+CNyxZDtRUKw+0sRrVl02
> T/m7W5y1tvKx/laWxRc0OcSKaGtvt/k/Zvbv2bOLhXg65SciKu7BZVF3zBfQBvOr
> u/lCkAtVoxHlif8kClOLav+cokiLAsRuIVZkTiRLFVFkEV7m4HLR7iGdCD7rHex0
> Q6hOj4+5eKLht7Q0eO3hLXHrBuj2WI8PbCvQDlnDPJirOB71Vw55+Xt1kLcs9710
> I5o7OgVY4dXoo/bTAlBL5a/G/mPA/4LW4UaT7yO125FbPWBkbdOCpj8hzi8zt+j7
> RODZpyCnVu91mSMC++CDeOMZyn13vFodU3c9lLSr1tTJJd7+F4dRgq8pfxOttBuN
> eY2dt/f7366XW1WdKgx3yJU469kB4CjMJQyaqqxHB9pLQj1OuxoYvubviWD3otNu
> inwG1BEgzuOoQsAThoj60lc2lq/Cpu52p2LgTxdNZ6DfkUBpWHJrDs0RE4Be2IH+
> aezkej01u3B9LQX/r3rP
> =aUhc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bruce-Robert Fenn Pocock]

for what it may be worth …

On Jun 2, 2013 5:37 AM, "Antonio" <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > If you don't still agree, I have not any problem to leave
> the
>  > review to someone else.
>  >
>  Errata corrige:
>
>  I mean ...
>  If you 
still do not

Or

do not yet

>  agree, I have 
no problem with leaving the review

>  to someone else. 
… although your intent is clear regardless.
(English is terribly subtle sometimes)

[Antonio Trande]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun 02 Jun 2013 05:46:29 PM CEST, Bruce-Robert Fenn Pocock wrote:
>  (English is terribly subtle sometimes)
>  
Sooner or later, I'll have to improve my English too. :D

- --
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter AT fedoraproject.org
www.fedora-os.org
GPG Key: D400D6C4
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRq3J1AAoJED2vIvfUANbE9KkP/je9QS8H7JI7JsE6wkAqBMzC
> 6353mIyCCPai0MWTsNjlt0hcZqsoISadV9EYtGN/yWavQcDl4ArxFBjEBR2FKHVA
> g2xAj9U7lfOhocRmPInQc0bI8WDeTqzdbZAtMxvAlC0JmruUfQLbNv8jim6nqHnr
> +J9oo91UQZCDTtGBHfPyYpmq0azyRh+/cHMy5J+NygNNwUHNt2kLLrTBmcI9JYJw
> l7HJ/Ru6eIM8fqOpZLxWGFoMSweJ3otrWP7EUpgiLtH+23P78DxEGZ4lpjlHpOpi
> 0PzkmPaLi9rVT4YJamRR0tA52jfs96nPlNMtnGKDzhSfVLRvNREoK/u0dyClQSVG
> 4XKD5o7ZQdFPbpAmObUr3E6ZMKNIkxCMbO54yt12A+FihOBsiRTCwFYYlBdjr/JD
> FWwvEsT7qummY9j25gHof98iO9UbX/6Ymy7hHjpSULhMklVya+2NZHQQDeusvELA
> dXtrt1QI3W7uCmi4Y2/r4aTJaRKJlNGGpSMiLKr4S8SnaEqh4iVs6i83u7s5Nt+k
> Mz9mV10LcPFdNLUyi6K2iJk7RD5iq/wqLGEvjZFsoW5JPtnukwhE6AtJnpk0ihpd
> 7V/jcM54z6xRWvgXG+ymPDyrz/pFOHoSY+PHH89fyk8AgQrjmI3lew7Fv5gwlZaK
> ikOkrNiGeMc1mJGbTX+H
> =O8fk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bruce-Robert Fenn Pocock]

No worries … most Americans can't manage it as well as you
On Jun 2, 2013 12:27 PM, "Antonio" <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  On Sun 02 Jun 2013 05:46:29 PM CEST, Bruce-Robert Fenn Pocock wrote:
>  > (English is terribly subtle sometimes)
>  >
>
>  Sooner or later, I'll have to improve my English too. :D
>
>  - --
>  Antonio Trande
>
>  mailto: sagitter AT fedoraproject.org
>  www.fedora-os.org
>  GPG Key: D400D6C4
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> >  Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >
> >  iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRq3J1AAoJED2vIvfUANbE9KkP/je9QS8H7JI7JsE6wkAqBMzC
> >  6353mIyCCPai0MWTsNjlt0hcZqsoISadV9EYtGN/yWavQcDl4ArxFBjEBR2FKHVA
> >  g2xAj9U7lfOhocRmPInQc0bI8WDeTqzdbZAtMxvAlC0JmruUfQLbNv8jim6nqHnr
> >  +J9oo91UQZCDTtGBHfPyYpmq0azyRh+/cHMy5J+NygNNwUHNt2kLLrTBmcI9JYJw
> >  l7HJ/Ru6eIM8fqOpZLxWGFoMSweJ3otrWP7EUpgiLtH+23P78DxEGZ4lpjlHpOpi
> >  0PzkmPaLi9rVT4YJamRR0tA52jfs96nPlNMtnGKDzhSfVLRvNREoK/u0dyClQSVG
> >  4XKD5o7ZQdFPbpAmObUr3E6ZMKNIkxCMbO54yt12A+FihOBsiRTCwFYYlBdjr/JD
> >  FWwvEsT7qummY9j25gHof98iO9UbX/6Ymy7hHjpSULhMklVya+2NZHQQDeusvELA
> >  dXtrt1QI3W7uCmi4Y2/r4aTJaRKJlNGGpSMiLKr4S8SnaEqh4iVs6i83u7s5Nt+k
> >  Mz9mV10LcPFdNLUyi6K2iJk7RD5iq/wqLGEvjZFsoW5JPtnukwhE6AtJnpk0ihpd
> >  7V/jcM54z6xRWvgXG+ymPDyrz/pFOHoSY+PHH89fyk8AgQrjmI3lew7Fv5gwlZaK
> >  ikOkrNiGeMc1mJGbTX+H
> >  =O8fk
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging