Re: outdated changelog timestamps (was Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields)

2006-06-12 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Adeodato Simó [Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:11:56 +0200]: > > It would be fairly easy to make dch only update the date when doing a > > dch -r. > Mmm? To be consistent with my quoted paragraph, this should read [snip: what joeyh said, with different words] Eh, excuse my mental hiccup, you got it right,

Re: outdated changelog timestamps (was Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields)

2006-06-12 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Joey Hess [Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:53:41 -0400]: > Adeodato Simó wrote: > > package (1.1) unstable; urgency=low > > [ Joe Random ] > > * Foo. > > -- UNRELEASED > This is very annoying when doing a test build, since it's not a valid > changelog format and so you have to fake up some r

Re: outdated changelog timestamps (was Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields)

2006-06-11 Thread Joey Hess
Adeodato Simó wrote: > I've thought about this several times, and I think what'd make me happy > would be, instead of this dist=UNRELEASED stuff to mark work in progress > in VCS, something like: > > package (1.1) unstable; urgency=low > > [ Joe Random ] > * Foo. > > -- UNRELEASED T

outdated changelog timestamps (was Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields)

2006-06-11 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Goswin von Brederlow [Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:49:50 +0200]: > David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:48PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: >>> Sometimes, the changelog will tell you the package was last changed 3 >>> month ago while actually it was changed yesterd