Working with the tools - or around/against the tools

[Ana Guerrero]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 06:04:36PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> [Proposal to change how we do stuff]
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Currently, when working with the changelog, we seem to in the team to have our 
> own specific style, a style that requires to adapt the changelog from the style 
> generated with usually recommended tools like dch and uupdate.
> 
> Every time I work around a tool, I think something is wrong. Either in the 
> tool or in my workflow.
> 
> I hereby suggest that we change our style of doing changelogs into the way dch 
> does it.
> 
> Currently, we have a style like:
> 
> package (1.2.3-4) experimental; urgency=low
> 
>   +++ Changes by Joe User:
> 
>   * doing foo
>   * doing bar
> 
>   +++ Changes by Jane Hacker:
> 
>   * Something third
>   * Something fourth
> 
>   --  Team-name <mail-list at host> date
> 
> where dch implements it as
> 
> package (1.2.3-4) experimental; urgency=low
> 
>   [ Joe User ]
>   * doing foo
>   * doing bar
> 
>   [ Jane Hacker ]
>   * Something third
>   * Something fourth
> 
>   -- Name of last changer <name at server> date
> 
> and dch does all the formatting automatically, so when Jack Third needs to add 
> a entry, he just do dch "Fix typo in package description"  and the resulting 
> changelog entry says:
> 
> package (1.2.3-4) experimental; urgency=low
> 
>   [ Joe User ]
>   * doing foo
>   * doing bar
> 
>   [ Jane Hacker ]
>   * Something third
>   * Something fourth
> 
>   [ Jack Third ]
>   * Fix typo in package description
> 
>   -- Jack Third <jthird at world> date
> 
> So please. Let us adopt the way dch does it so we don't have to change and 
> adapt the changelog all the time.  This also have the advantage that doing 
> automatic processing, dch can do the changelog handling instead of own 
> scripts.
>

I do not care at all about using +++ Name or [ Name ] but when more than a
person have worked in the package I like uploading it as a team upload as we
have done until now. So not ok about changing that.

> Now speak up - and by the way, I will consider this as accepted if no one 
> speaks against it within the next weeks or so.  

This is not a nice way of handling stuff... so I send a mail with big changes
the week you are off on holidays with the same way of "agreement" and it is ok?
Sometimes mail with proposal do not have answer because well... it is not
worth answer it.

> If most people currently in 
> uploaders fields of the packages accept it, doing it quicker is also possible.
> 
Why? We have plenty of people in the Uploaders field and we all know not
everybody works the same in the team. We should try to reach concensus using
the common sense, not a majority vote that does not make sense when work is
not balanced.


Ana