On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:31:51PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:15:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:10:14PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > > I currently don't see a relevant benefit in this above just using the > > > changelog entry, which you need to write anyway. Additional information > > Putting the information in the changelog makes it much harder to find > Yes, putting the information _only_ in the changelog make it much harder > to find, but that is not what I did nor what I proposed. As you can > see, my patch header is a copy of the changelog entry, so you don't even > need to open the changelog file to get all relevant information. You might've wanted to make that more explicit in the message - saying "just use[ing] the changelog entry" gives a different impression. > If an integration of the information in the patch headers into UDD would > be planned which could be used to query patches not applied upstream or > similar, I would at least see a benefit in using a standard header > format. That's the idea - make the data available for software. I'd also expect to see the standard headers encourage the recording of information that gets a standard header, it's certainly helped that in Linux. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
