On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 20:02 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:07:56PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> >> And definitvely, for me, (and probably only for me), git is really
> >> not a good tool for spec maintenance.
> >
> > Not
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:15:38AM +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
> wrote:
> > * If a git commit is tagged in a specific way, omit from rpm changelog.
> > What I mean by "tagged" is a git tag, in form of let's say
> > "silentXXX". Where XXX
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
> * If a git commit is tagged in a specific way, omit from rpm changelog.
> What I mean by "tagged" is a git tag, in form of let's say
> "silentXXX". Where XXX has to be unique, but that can be figured out by
> fedpkg easily.
I'
Quoting Paul Wouters (2012-05-21 02:02:23)
> On Fri, 18 May 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:07:56PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> >> And definitvely, for me, (and probably only for me), git is really
> >> not a good tool for spec maintenance.
> >
> > Not duplicating
On 05/20/2012 09:49 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:02:23PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
Agreed. changelog and version field conflicts are 90% of my cherry-pick
conflicts.
I would be in favour of no longer maintaining a changelog in the spec file
As long as it gets put into
Le lundi 21 mai 2012 à 09:01 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 08:33 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 09:49:03PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:02:23PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > > Agreed. changelog and version
On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 08:33 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 09:49:03PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:02:23PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > Agreed. changelog and version field conflicts are 90% of my cherry-pick
> > > conflicts.
> > > I wou
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 09:49:03PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:02:23PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > Agreed. changelog and version field conflicts are 90% of my cherry-pick
> > conflicts.
> > I would be in favour of no longer maintaining a changelog in the spec file
>
On Sun, 20 May 2012, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:02:23PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
Agreed. changelog and version field conflicts are 90% of my cherry-pick
conflicts.
I would be in favour of no longer maintaining a changelog in the spec file
As long as it gets put into th
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:02:23PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> Agreed. changelog and version field conflicts are 90% of my cherry-pick
> conflicts.
> I would be in favour of no longer maintaining a changelog in the spec file
As long as it gets put into the final RPM in the build process somehow.
On Fri, 18 May 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:07:56PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
And definitvely, for me, (and probably only for me), git is really
not a good tool for spec maintenance.
Not duplicating the changelog would help. There's little reason to
have a chang
11 matches
Mail list logo
