On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
b) Commit messages are only useful, when the RPM changelog can be built with the help of these messages somehow automatically.
I think they should kept separate (or at least this behaviour should be made optional).
I regard the commit log as something which may not be what I want to end up into the rpm changelog. I may need many iterations until I get a package to build on all targets, and I would clutter the rpm changelog with those changes.
Just like the rpm changelog is usually not the same as the changelog of any upstream source code repository.
For example, IMO it makes sense to the Apache webserver package that there are really three changelogs: - the upstream svn changelog (also packaged as CHANGES in the packages) - the buildservice commit log (making transparent the work of the packager) - the rpm changelog (documenting user-visible end results)
Of course it can make total sense to derive the rpm changelog automatically from the commit log, in certain cases -- I agree on that.
You are right. Nevertheless I'm too lazy to change my RPM packages (especially as I hate the syntax). But I'm used to have -m due to svn and cvs. Probably the solution could be a tag system like the one used in KDE. Adding e.g. "CHANGELOG:" to the commit message to have it in the RPM changelog? Would be very helpful I think. And when having Tags, we could also implement "NOREBUILD" to prevent a rebuild e.g. when checking in new files and before I had the chance to edit the .spec. Regarding the webpage: The Add-file and edit-file pages could get a box for commit messages as well as checkmarks for the Tags I introduced here :-) Leaving only deletes without message. Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org