Hi Felipe,
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 04:09:07PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> wrote:
> > Hi Felipe,
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:34:26PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >> Package: git-buildpackage
> >> Version: 0.4.59
> >> Severity: wishlist
> >>
> >> A pretty common workflow is the following:
> >>
> >> 1- Work on the package
> >> 2- Upload
> >> 3- Import new upstream version
> >> 4- Create changelog entry for local testing
> >> 5- Some more work
> >> 6- Upload
> >>
> >> This works like a charm with --auto. However, when steps 3 and 5 are in
> >> another order (eg, you fixed something and then updated the new upstream
> >> version), git-dch misses all the entries from before the new changelog
> >> entry. A way to pick up all the changes since the last released version
> >> would be gratly appreciated.
> >> I'm thinking this can be done by making git-dch ignore changelog
> >> versions marked as UNRELEASED to guess the version (and thus having to
> >> use -s), but that would mean having to parse debian/changelog instead of
> >> using dpkg-parsechangelog.
> >
> > Sorry for picking this up _that_ late. I wonder if there really is
> > s.th. to fix here. If you create a changelog entry (4.) afer doing local
> > modifications you ought to do so with gbp-dch. If you don't, you're
> > basically telling gbp-dch: "I want these entries ignored". If you create
> > the changelog entry for local testing using "gbp-dch --auto" everything
> > is fine.
>
> So you suggest using `gbp dch -a -N $new_upstream_version-1` when
> importing a new upstream version? If that works, it could be useful.
> Even better if we could tell gbp-import-orig to run it for us :)
You can even drop the -N part. gbp dch --auto is enough, it will pick up
the new upstream version automatically. You can also have gbp import
orig run it, e.g.:
$ gbp config import-orig.postimport
import-orig.postimport=gbp dch -S -a --debian-branch=$GBP_BRANCH && git
commit --amend -C@{0} debian/changelog
> > We could do as you suggested and ignore entries marked UNRELEASED but
> > I'd rather have people use "gbp-dch" for the local testing entries as
> > well or is that unreasonable?
>
> I don't think it is unreasonable. This is certainly a minor issue.
Given the above I'm inclined to close this then or mark as wontfix.
Cheers,
-- Guido
