Stop the git abuse

Stijn Hoop stijn at
Mon May 21 12:19:28 UTC 2012

On Mon, 21 May 2012 13:40:55 +0200
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at> wrote:
> On 05/21/2012 12:21 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > On 05/21/12 10:23, 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.
> > Temporary?  git commit messages disappearing is news to me ...
> They may disappear by database operations, by database defects or by 
> ocersights/mistakes when such databases will be converted to the next 
> generation of VCS.

While I agree about the target audience being different, and therefore
having different changelogs is in some way justified, I disagree
with this last assessment.

The reasons you mention are just FUD -- this can happen to whatever
data you specify and is not cause for different usage (other than
backup strategy etc), and furthermore is not specific to RPM changelog
data in any way.



More information about the devel mailing list