Trimming (or obsoleting) %changelog?

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Sat Apr 20 15:39:14 UTC 2013


On 19/04/13 09:44 PM, Alex G. wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 09:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On 19/04/13 06:16 PM, Alex G. wrote:
>>> On 04/15/2013 05:30 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>>> Is there any guidance as when to trim %changelog down to size? Some
>>>> packages have thousands of lines of spec file dating back over 15
>>>> years which seem kinda redundant now we're using git.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've always seen the %changelog as a relic from times when we didn't
>>> have reliable source SCMs. For me, it is redundant (and boring) to have
>>> to update the %changelog, while I have the exact same information in the
>>> git history.
>>>
>>> I think the best way to go is to obsolete %changelog, and extract the
>>> changelog directly from git history. I don't care as much about how far
>>> back it should go. As far as knowing the package version (i.e. 1.2.3-6)
>>> for each commit, that can easily be handled with a git hook.
>>>
>>> So, why bother putting similar information in two places when there are
>>> better ways to go?
>>
>> Thanks - I just won a small bet with myself as to when this thread would
>> circle back to that discussion yet again...
>
> I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the discussion is circular.

Sorry, not within this thread - but any discussion vaguely in this area 
inevitably winds up with someone suggesting that RPM and git logs get 
merged somehow. I've done it myself. It's come up probably a half dozen 
times just since I've been reading the list.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net


More information about the devel mailing list