On 2007-02-19 12:26:04 +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 12:07:55PM +0100, Christoph Thiel wrote:
From a packagers point of view it really boils down to "update to version x.y". But if you look at it from a user's point of view, it's much more convenient to not having to go to some URL to figure out what actually changed and why you should upgrade. This also holds true, especially, for our Autobuild folks, who review all submissions into Factory (and other distros). Prj. Managers appreciate those detailed changes, too!
I totally agree this takes some time and can be quite tedious sometimes.. ;)
For me this sounds like mixing up the layers. If I read "update to whatever" then it is not really a hard job to go to the URL (which is often in the package description as well) and look up the details about the software changes there if this is what I am interested in.
If you mix in the changes to the software into the changes that the packager did to the package it becomes much more difficult to find what the _packager_ actually did to the package.
In my opinion the package changelog is neither a good place to replace communication infrastructure to your manager nor it is a good place to do customer marketing. I still consider the changelog to be a log to track changes you did.
right. but often users might care why you did the version upgrade. so it is nice to outline/summarize at least the most important changes. darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org