On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 12:43:49PM -0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> Since I was asked for my sign-off, I'm by and large in favour of this
> change.
OK, with your approval, and the attachment of the original .changes file to
support scripts which want this format, I think that all of the previous
concerns raised have been addressed.
> The one thing I remain unsure of is how we're handling uploads that
> include changelog entries from multiple package versions in their
> .changes file. Matt suggested extracting the information from
> debian/changelog in the uploaded source package, which I think is a good
> idea, but this is definitely worth a test case.
To clarify, I think it would be great to extract the complete changes, but
this doesn't need to block the initial deployment. It would be sufficient
to include the information currently available in .changes (since that's no
worse than what we have today).
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 12:43:49PM -0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> Since I was asked for my sign-off, I'm by and large in favour of this
> change.
OK, with your approval, and the attachment of the original .changes file to
support scripts which want this format, I think that all of the previous
concerns raised have been addressed.
> The one thing I remain unsure of is how we're handling uploads that
> include changelog entries from multiple package versions in their
> .changes file. Matt suggested extracting the information from
> debian/changelog in the uploaded source package, which I think is a good
> idea, but this is definitely worth a test case.
To clarify, I think it would be great to extract the complete changes, but
this doesn't need to block the initial deployment. It would be sufficient
to include the information currently available in .changes (since that's no
worse than what we have today).
--
- mdz