Dear all, ChangeLog formats are not the same across the project; some projects are more demanding, others aren't; I've seen a royal mess in many, I've found others way to strict and speaking for myself, I find it very uncool that we can workout an update on package in 10 minutes and wast 4 or 5 times more with the changelogs (entries in .changes) than doing the technical update. Now it would be nice that all the packaging gurus out there could get some time during OSC and probably make a BoF or some discussion about trying to bring a unified procedure accross the project. Honestly if we want people to get in the workflow or help us out, I find that hard to accomplish when the technical details take way much less to do perform than the changelog entries. So, please whoever has the power to change things and work towards this, please take the lead so that if one can help, it doesn't has to follow different ways of working; If you want to increase the precision of the changelogs, cool, if you want to make it more 'loose' nice... A few situations to consider: 1. A package that hasnt been updated for a few releases: + making tens of entries, so that they get squashed in the bottom sounds uncool; + if you want precision on changelogging, then remove that squash and lets us use 100 lines or more in the changelog entry, otherwise don't ask for precision. 2. Format and documentation: + Just consider documenting the whole process so that we can learn to make the entries project wide; If this means that 99% of people will face more picking situations, then too bad. But we need this stuff sorted. We can't have personal reviews taking the heat all by themselves without being able to refer to a unified method/documentation. Honestly consider this seriously and someone make a stand and raise a crusade to provide people the tools/guidance they need. So far it's hillarious to fix/upgrade/update a package in a few minutes, and then waste countless hours with the changelog. Some people may like to masturbate while writting changelogs, I don't... specially because for the vast majority of the cases, the NEWS file does provide exactly a duplicate of the entries... For the defenders of 'rpm -q --changelog'; sure it's nice in runtime, but if the package is properly packaged, then you should have NEWS on documentation... Which ends up being pretty much the same. This is just a personal concern, which probably others may share. If I have to improve this and learn this stuff, I only want to do it once, not for all bloody projects out there... If old habbits have to die, then they better die once and for all. NM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org