Renaming packages, trimming changelog and re-starting revisions?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:30:30AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On 05/13/2010 11:13 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:12:39AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >    
> >> On 05/13/2010 10:05 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> >>      
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> we recently started a relatively big rename of several packages
> >>> (jakarta-commons). There seems to be inconsistency as far as changelog
> >>> trimming and revision numbering goes. I could not find anything on that
> >>> point on wiki.
> >>>
> >>> So:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>        
> >> Personally, I'd say. . .think really old is around three-
> >>      
> >>> 1. Is is required to trim the changelog when renaming package?
> >>>
> >>>        
> >> Please don't, but do comment on the old name at the( relevant changelog
> >> entry.
> >>
> >>      
> > Agreed -- I do trim changelogs of really old entries from my specs (4+
> > years) once a year or so.  That's separate from renaming.
> >
> > -Toshoi
> >    
> Agreed?  I came out against trimming, not for.  I don't feel terribly 
> strongly about it, though.
>
Agreed as in: don't trim changelogs *because* you're renaming the package.
But also pointing out that trimming changelogs is reasonable as long as you
aren't treadingtoo closely to modern history.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100513/1f5844ce/attachment.bin