ambiguity in the guidelines

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le mercredi 05 juillet 2006 à 16:50 -0400, seth vidal a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 16:44 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 04:13:32PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > I've read the guidelines and I don't see where it mandates the format of
> > > the changelog lines.
> > 
> > If it's worth anything at all, as a sysadmin, I find having (e:)v-r
> > information in the changelog to be incredibly useful.
> 
> why? the date tells me more b/c at least that has _something_ to do with
> the versions, etc.

When you compare two systems, the date is worthless and the (e:)v-r pure
gold. (e:)v-r will tell you when devel and update packages where synced
for example. Date will tell you "these two package where produced at
about the same time". It won't tell you if one was based on a
three-years-old fork and the other on current upstream snapshot.

(and sure you can find the info with a little archeology but that's not
the point. When I see two changelogs with the same (e:)v-r and different
comments I know the packages have diverged. When I see two changelogs
with the same date and different comments - are the packages diverging
or the maintainer holding up an patch for one branch till it's ready?)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20060706/a321562b/attachment.sig>