On 04/22/2013 08:39 PM, Dirk Müller wrote:
Hi AJ,
I just reviewed and declined a lot of openstack packages since the changes files contained removal of entries and I did not see that those were added anywhere else.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot", I can only see two:
https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/172710 https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/172708
there were some more.
For the first, the reason is that we've switched the packages to the Grizzly tree, which means they're from a much newer code branch. That inevitably means that there will be a bit of .changes mismatch.
Now looking at your comments in details, the first one is a decline about this changes entry change:
-- Changes from version 1.0.5:
Note that no actual change has been lost (.spec file is identical and so are all sources), merely the .changes file entry has been cleaned up in the newer code branch. Do you think it is a good idea to decline requests due to that?
A general review rule is that changes files get added to but not removed. Pretty printing is fine. Let's look again at 172710. My comment was: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why are you removing content from the changes file? -------------- --- python-django_openstack_auth.changes +++ python-django_openstack_auth.changes @@ -4,4 +4,3 @@ -- Update to version 1.0.6: - + Fix compatibility with keystoneclient v0.2. -- Changes from version 1.0.5: - + Improves error handling; fixes failing test. +- update to 1.0.6: + * Fix compatibility with keystoneclient v0.2. + * Improves error handling; fixes failing test Pretty-printing is fine but removing the 1.0.5 entry loooks wrong. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, I complain about these two lines *missing*: - Changes from version 1.0.5: + Improves error handling; fixes failing test.
The second one was declined due to this:
- + Use pypi for python-swiftclient dependency. + Use pypi for python-swiftclient dependency.
Nope, it was not - but let's not discuss The diff is: -Wed Jan 30 07:11:43 UTC 2013 - cloud-devel@suse.de +Tue Apr 2 08:17:21 UTC 2013 - speilicke@suse.com -- Update to version 1.7.4.1+git.1359529903.0ce3e1d: - + Use pypi for python-swiftclient dependency.
Again, the patch is clearly in the new code branch submission (see line 298 of the .changes file), merely the formatting of the changes file has been confsued.
Let's not discuss these single changes, let's discuss the overall way.
With such a deficient system like the build service, a proper .changes file is not always possible to maintain. Please proceed with the review (unfortunatly I can't seem to be able to reopen the requests in the webui).
You can create new request. So, let's come back to the real question: How to handle these submissions? The general rule is that no information should be lost and it could be that some of the Folsom packages contained other changes that were not done to the Grizzly ones. Looking at https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/172713, the Folsom branch contains an extra patch that is not in the Grizzly one. Is this really intended? There are very few projects that develop on two branches at the same time and then switch branches - and seem to remove submissions. What are other reviewers thinking? One proposal would be to resubmit the packages with a comment "These are Grizzly packages from new branch, contains all changes from Folsom but were developed in parallel" - together with a review from the submitter that really everything is in? Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-cloud+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-cloud+owner@opensuse.org