26/05/14 11:07, intrigeri wrote: > Hi, > > merged, thanks. Congrats!
Thanks! > Other (non-blocking) comments: > > The entry in debian/changelog for 1.6.9.0 seems to lack everything > that can be found in the 1.6.7.0 and 1.6.8.0 upstream changelog > sections, that hence don't appear anywhere in d/changelog, since these > two versions were not packaged. Perhaps changing debian/README.source > to use git-dch instead of plain dch would avoid such mistakes in > the future. I actually used dit-dch, but then I cleaned the changelog by removing the entries generated for following not-very-interesting commits: 1e1210f Merge remote-tracking branch 'gk/bug_9901_v5' 4a9d180 Changelog and version bump for 1.6.7.0. a9a3b8f Merge remote-tracking branch 'brade/bug10398' 0bd903f Write changelog and bump version for 1.6.8.0. 453ef7f Update changelog and rdf for 1.6.9.0. In the future, would you prefer that I keep even such uninformative entries? > Regarding the version/Tor check, this is getting complicated enough > that a few lines explaining the whole thing in the design doc would > seem appropriate to me. I suspect the messages for the commits you've > mentioned in the merge request should be good basis for such text. > I think we're slowly, but consistently accumulating "technical debt" > by under-documenting how our browser is configured. OTOH, this is > a process I should probably have started myself back when committing > 3241197, so it would certainly not be fair to put the burden of > documenting this all now on your shoulders. Care to file a ticket > about it, referencing the commits you mentioned? Opened as #7284. Cheers! _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
