ambiguity in the guidelines

[Jesse Keating]

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 16:13, seth vidal wrote:
>  I'd love to hear more comments on this
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197699
>
>
> I've read the guidelines and I don't see where it mandates the format of
> the changelog lines.

After reading all the comments, my opinion is

A) Changelog format should not be a MUST, we could allow for some flexibility 
in the packager.

B) There could be a generic 'The changelog SHOULD have the version-release 
noted in it somewhere' rule, where that version-release winds up is up to the 
packager, and its a should rather than a Must.  Reviews shouldn't be blocked 
because of this, its just a suggested practice.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20060706/2f0b15a5/attachment.sig>