Web lists-archives.com

Re: changelog practice, unfinalised vs UNRELEASED vs ~version

Hi there,

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:11:12 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 at 12:48:35 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > What do people think ?
> I think you're the only person I've ever seen using unfinalized
> changelog entries for Debian packages.

FWIW, I am another user of this workflow...


> If I'm understanding correctly, your motivation to do so is that you
> have a strong belief that building a Debian source package with `debuild`
> or similar, directly from a VCS checkout, should always work and should
> always produce results that could be considered correct (in terms of not
> having the version number of a prior version, not having the version
> number of a future version either, not claiming to have been released
> by a person who did not in fact release it, and so on).

...and agree as well on the above statements, adding that IMHO releasing
something should always be a manual process, i.e. a real person should
be able to be blamed for ;-)

I have discussed a lot about my workflow with other fellow Debian
members, always because it disrupts automatic building from VCS.  Well,
for this situation IMHO the automatic builder should first calls `dch
-r` with appropriate uploader name/email (e.g. "VCS autobuilder
<vcs-autobuilder@$(hostname -f)>") and, whenever possible, guess the
correct distribution.

> I'm concerned that the first model is optimized for people who know
> Debian as well as you do, and do not need pre-commit review because
> they get everything right first time.

I also prefer the first model, i.e. writing debian/changelog entries as
you go along, and I do not see any problem in fixing a previous commit
without changing the corresponding debian/changelog entry.

The debian/changelog is the history of changes for the Debian source
package (.orig.tar.$COMPRESSION, .debian.tar.$COMPRESSION and .dsc). The
VCS changelog is the history of changes to achieve the former (which can
be one or more commits or even a complete branch).  Inflating these 2
histories is IMHO wrong.

Which is also the reason why I do not like debian/changelog with Git
commits entries.

> I don't think Debian would be as
> large or successful a project as it is if we restricted our contributor
> base to people who know the corner cases as well as Ian Jackson does :-)

IMHO Debian is so successful exactly because we have not imposed any
constraint, as Holger already pointed out:


Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature