On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 3:26 PM kevin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:57:34PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:54 PM Matthew Miller
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:51:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > > That makes it extra steps to see changelogs
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:57:34PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:54 PM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:51:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > That makes it extra steps to see changelogs on a not-installed package.
> > > I do sometimes do "rpm -q
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:54 PM Matthew Miller
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:51:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > That makes it extra steps to see changelogs on a not-installed package.
> > I do sometimes do "rpm -q --changelog -p foo.rpm" or "dnf changelog foo"
> > (for example, to see
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:51:13AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> That makes it extra steps to see changelogs on a not-installed package.
> I do sometimes do "rpm -q --changelog -p foo.rpm" or "dnf changelog foo"
> (for example, to see what is changed since my installed version).
> Converting to an
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > Let's stop requiring Release bumps for each build. And let's put an
> > additional tag into Release, like proposed in [4]:
> >
> > "Release: 1%{?dist}%{?buildtag}"
> >
> > ... and let the
On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 17:04 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 04:30:18PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 10:46 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > > Release tag problem/proposal
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 04:30:18PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 10:46 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > Release tag problem/proposal
> > >
> > >
> > > Let's stop requiring
On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 10:46 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > Release tag problem/proposal
> >
> >
> > Let's stop requiring Release bumps for each build. And let's put
> > an
> > additional tag into
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:57:32 AM CEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 13. 08. 20 15:08, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > I hope I marked the results public so the
> > results are visible to anyone.
>
> I could see the results when I've submitted the form, but I no longer know
> how
> to get to them.
Disclaimer: I'm part of the team who worked on rpmautospec, i.e. I'm
obviously biased and will view everything through that lens. ;)
On Thu, 2020-08-13 at 15:08 +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Release tag problem/proposal
>
>
> Let's stop requiring Release bumps for
On Wednesday, 19 August 2020 at 10:54, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
[...]
> I think the value of the %changelog for debugging problems on a host
> is overstated in general though. In most cases I find the entries are
> just too terse to be useful, especially when you have packages where
> the only
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:46:48AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > Questionnaire right at the beginning, so if you tl;dr, you don't miss it:
> >
> > https://forms.gle/Jgr13vtRkiUwLb6W6
> >
> > This is no change proposal
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Questionnaire right at the beginning, so if you tl;dr, you don't miss it:
>
> https://forms.gle/Jgr13vtRkiUwLb6W6
>
> This is no change proposal but rather a result of my long-term curiosity
> around the $Subject problem. I
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > Let's stop requiring Release bumps for each build. And let's put an
> > additional tag into Release, like proposed in [4]:
> >
> > "Release: 1%{?dist}%{?buildtag}"
>
> Can I ask why this
On 13. 08. 20 15:08, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
I hope I marked the results public so the
results are visible to anyone.
I could see the results when I've submitted the form, but I no longer know how
to get to them. Can you share the link please?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Let's stop requiring Release bumps for each build. And let's put an
> additional tag into Release, like proposed in [4]:
>
> "Release: 1%{?dist}%{?buildtag}"
Can I ask why this wouldn't be:
Release: 1%{?buildtag}%{?dist}
?
Till Maas wrote:
> what about other special cases when using 0.1 for the release to
> indicate pre-releases or git IDs for snapshots. How would that look
> like with your proposal?
None of that needs to change just because a buildtag is appended.
Whenever the source code changes in any way, one
On 13.08.2020 15:08, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> "Release: 1%{?dist}%{?buildtag}"
I have a better solution - automatically bump Release on every official
build. Additional tags are not good.
> %changelog
> * This package doesn't provide changelog metadata, check it online
>
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Release tag problem/proposal
>
>
> Let's stop requiring Release bumps for each build. And let's put an
> additional tag into Release, like proposed in [4]:
>
> "Release: 1%{?dist}%{?buildtag}"
>
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller said:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > Such %changelog has a very similar level of quality as all the generated
> > approaches, and we don't have to complicate our lives (or buildsystem).
> > Alternatively, we can teach build
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Such %changelog has a very similar level of quality as all the generated
> approaches, and we don't have to complicate our lives (or buildsystem).
> Alternatively, we can teach build systems to upload the git-log file
> somewhere, or
Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Questionnaire right at the beginning, so if you tl;dr, you don't miss it:
>
> https://forms.gle/Jgr13vtRkiUwLb6W6
The questionnaire itself is short, but understanding all the proposals
is considerable work. That's where TL;DR will happen.
> Let's stop requiring
Questionnaire right at the beginning, so if you tl;dr, you don't miss it:
https://forms.gle/Jgr13vtRkiUwLb6W6
This is no change proposal but rather a result of my long-term curiosity
around the $Subject problem. I hope I marked the results public so the
results are visible to anyone.
23 matches
Mail list logo
