Stop the git abuse

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Mon May 21 11:56:55 UTC 2012


On 05/21/2012 12:27 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 10:23 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On 05/21/2012 09:56 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:07:56PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
>>>>>> And definitvely, for me, (and probably only for me), git is
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> not a good tool for spec maintenance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not duplicating the changelog would help.  There's little reason
>>>>> to
>>>>> have a changelog in git which is then manually copied into
>>>>> %changelog.
>>>>
>>>> +1, for me - GIT is the authority for change logs, not SPEC...
>>>
>>> -1 changelogs are manually written documents and source files.
>>> A database's (git), temporary meta information is irrelvant.
>>
>> +1, the changelog is available to the user through an rpm query which
>> is
>> essential and useful to covey what has has been done.
>
> I'm trying to backport most important changes to changelog from GIT
> but usually the GIT log is where I look to get the real changes...

IMO, there are major differences between git commit logs and an rpm's 
%changelogs.

The number one difference being the target audience:
package maintainers vs. rpm users.

Technically, the major difference is git recording each and every 
detail, which an rpm's user hardly is interested in. The latter audience 
is not interested in seeing these details, they are interesting in 
"summaries".

E.g. they are not interested in seeing
........  ABC-3
... Fix memory leak (PR XYZ).
... merge from HEAD.
... merge cleanup.
... fix typo in previous commit.
... fix yet another typo.
........ ABC-2
... Upstream update.

They are interested in reading
........  ABC-3
... Fix memory leak (PR XYZ).
........  ABC-2
... Upstream update.

Ralf


More information about the devel mailing list