On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 12:13 +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:13:19 +0200 Martin Wilck
wrote: iles at the time? Some simple scripting around "osc log" and "osc rdiff" should provide the data in question. Or am I missing something?
Many package revisions cannot be 'expanded'.
Right. I noted that. I used to consider it a bug, but I never digged further.
Something along the lines of
for x in $(seq 2 12); do echo === $x osc rdiff -r$((x-1)):$x openSUSE:Factory vdr | cat done | egrep '^=== |^[+-]Patch[0-9]*:'
It could arguably be made a easier and more reliable, but it can be done today.
And if it can be done why don't the mass-change scripts do it instead of parsing the changelogs?
Don't ask me ...
Because parsing changelogs is much faster and more reliable than querying OBS I suspect.
The information is there somewhere in OBS. Maybe hidden in some way, or
difficult to retrieve by complex link patterns, but in general it
should be available, und should ultimately be more reliable than the
human-maintained .changes file, even if the bot tries to enforce the
rules.
The one thing an open source project should avoid most is pissing off
its volunteer contributors, and it seems we're failing at that. If the
bot detects that changelog entries are missing for added or removed
patches, why doesn't it simply insert them?
Regards,
Martin
--
Dr. Martin Wilck