Le 31/05/2013 17:57, Jamie Nguyen a écrit :

On 31/05/13 16:42, Antonio wrote:

...

I need a clarification about the Changelog section in a spec file during a package review process.

In particular, pursuant to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs guidelines:

...

Every time you make changes, that is, whenever you increment the

E-V-R >of a package, add a changelog entry.

...

... Changelog entries should provide a brief summary of the changes done to the package between releases, including noting updating to a new version, adding a patch, fixing other spec sections, note bugs fixed, and CVE's if any

In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966201, David says that Changelog changes' list is not necessary during package review process because it is still a "initial package" state.

For all my packages and not only, every one always asks me to update the Changelog, also for a minimal modification in a package pre-review/review process. To be sure and to resolve this issue with David, I need some clarification regard to how to use properly the Changelog section since the first package review submit.

David is correct that updating the changelog is not a mandatory part of the review process, but at the same time it can be (and is often) very helpful. I've seen many reviewers request that the changelog is updated during the review process. For all of my review requests I increment the Release tag and add a changelog entry. It makes it then very easy to follow the evolution of the package. And for reviews that I perform myself, I always prefer packagers to increment Release and add a changelog entry.

I'd say that if the reviewer assigns themselves to a review and requests nicely (as you have done) that the packager adds changelog entries for each change, then the packager should strive to do so, since making life easier for the reviewer can only be a good thing (especially since reviewing packages is often a thankless task).

I agree. Updating changelog during review seems a very good practice.

Remi.

Kind regards,

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 06:47:52PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:

...

David is correct that updating the changelog is not a mandatory part of the review process, but at the same time it can be (and is often) very helpful. I've seen many reviewers request that the changelog is updated during the review process. For all of my review requests I increment the Release tag and add a changelog entry. It makes it then very easy to follow the evolution of the package. And for reviews that I perform myself, I always prefer packagers to increment Release and add a changelog entry.

I'd say that if the reviewer assigns themselves to a review and requests nicely (as you have done) that the packager adds changelog entries for each change, then the packager should strive to do so, since making life easier for the reviewer can only be a good thing (especially since reviewing packages is often a thankless task).

I agree. Updating changelog during review seems a very good practice.

It is also a good indication of whether the packager is going to be a good Fedora citizen or not. There's no harm to having the changelog entries and new packagers that refuse to add them often argue about other things as well or change things to be contrary to the guidelines once their package has passed review.

I always require that packagers add changelog entries during package review if I'm going to review and approve the package. (If the packager can find someone else to review and approve their package with that attitude, I don't object, though -- this usually oomes up with someone who needs to be sponsored into the packager group. If some other packager wants to sponsor and train an argumentative packager and reprimand them if they can't be bothered to follow the guidelines later, that's the sponsor's problem.)

-Toshio

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 05/31/2013 09:47 PM, Antonio wrote:

If you don't still agree, I have not any problem to leave the review to someone else.

Errata corrige:

I mean ... If you are not still agree, I have not any problem to leave the review to someone else.

Sorry. :P

- -- Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter AT fedoraproject.org www.fedora-os.org GPG Key: D400D6C4

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Sun 02 Jun 2013 05:46:29 PM CEST, Bruce-Robert Fenn Pocock wrote:

(English is terribly subtle sometimes)

Sooner or later, I'll have to improve my English too. :D

- -- Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter AT fedoraproject.org www.fedora-os.org GPG Key: D400D6C4