On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 02:10:29 +0200, Simon Lees wrote:
On 02/07/2019 02:15, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Monday 2019-07-01 18:27, Richard Brown wrote:
Then let's focus the review on quality of the software and legal issues and not on formalism like listing patch files in the changelog.
Formalism like listing patches is something which makes automated review of quality and legal issues significantly more practable. Without formal tracking of patches, there can easily be changes that invalidate such quality or legal reviews.
This could be implemented as a forced local source service, that is, the same tech that adds # Copyright (c) 2019 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Nuernberg, Germany. to every spec file that is lacking it. That local source service should be able to tell what files have been added and which are deleted, and augment .changes by an autogenerated entry that contains the desired line "Added xx.diff", "Removed xx.diff".
Unfortunately as I stated somewhere else, at the moment in terms of security / bug fixes this isn't complete enough, there needs to be a mapping from patch name to bug number in the .changes file and this is somewhat harder to automate.
Hmm.. how it can be different? This is about *.changes, not about patchinfo. I don't understand why the automatic tracking of patch files can be worse. It really sounds as if you mandate the submission of a hand-written tax declaration at each time -- even if the whole transactions have been tracked online -- just because the tax officer prefers reading the printed papers :) thanks, Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org