Suggestion: An organized changelog?

sweiss · 2004-07-22 17:32:18

Hi. I was wondering, is it possible to start a changelog which will show what changed in every new package? For example, version update, packaging bug which caused this and that was resolved, etc.

Your thoughts?

dpb · 2004-07-22 18:09:29

http://cvs.archlinux.org servs as a changelog. There's no need for another IMO.

kakabaratruskia · 2004-07-22 20:22:53

I think it would be nice, if there could be a direct link from the package announcement part in the webpage, to the changelog, in cvs. I think it's useles to include it in the packages, but there should be an easier way to look for the changelog. At least the possibility of a search button in the cvs.

sarah31 · 2004-07-22 20:45:29

i think changelogs would be good but you would have to actually have to encourage the maintainers to fill it out. the cvs comments are hardly every used or just have bulk entries. specific comments are rare.

there is a direct link to the cvs and the comments held there already (ie "view cvs" or whatever).

one other thing. i think comments when a arch package version changes (ie somepackage-1.2.3-1 to somepackage-1.2.3.-2) should be the only time that comments are really needed. when the overall version changes then users can just refer to the changelogs managed by the developers of the source. i don't feel it is the maintainer's duty to regurgitate an already existing (and sometimes very lengthy) changelog.

kakabaratruskia · 2004-07-22 20:56:19

you are right sarah, there is a direct link. I had not noticed it (must have seen it, but never understood what it meant). I think that this is all that's needed as a changelog.

Dusty · 2004-07-22 22:09:41

Brand new idea, is this?

http://www.archlinux.org/docs/en/guide/ … #changelog

rasat · 2004-07-23 03:28:28

Dusty wrote:

Brand new idea, is this?
http://www.archlinux.org/docs/en/guide/ … #changelog

docs wrote:

Some people want package changelogs. This would complicate Arch, which is in direct conflict with the keep it simple attitude.

I don't agree with this one sided definition of Arch's simplicity.... "easy go for devs and let users take the headage". In the usage of simplicity there has to include a sincere effort making it easier for both devs and users.

In the case of having a changelog, a helpful idea for the users, if a link can be added to cvs then why not!!? If not and devs have to write a separate changelog, this of course would be for the devs to decide if they want.

The point here, how I would define "simple", devs should always try to find how to maximum automate the things or check if already exist.... "<b>keep simple and automate whenever its possible to make it easier for both devs and users without side stepping the basic principles of Arch</b>" (e.g. "don't spoil the users' learning process" ).

sarah31 · 2004-07-23 06:21:39

i believe it is not much work to put a basic comment for each package. as i say for full version ups though the users should really consult the source developer's changelogs most are far too long to remember or repeat.

at first i put one for all comments but as time went by i found tit more useful for myself to comment each package. i really do not think that this is too much of a task if a maintainer is on top of their maintenance duties.

sweiss · 2004-07-23 09:22:06

Just to clarify, it was not my intention to include full changelogs for newer version. Just adding a note "Upgraded to version X" will suffice, in order to keep the changelog continuous.

What I basically mean is a changelog like the one in Slackware's -current branch.

Haakon · 2004-07-23 11:43:47

rasat wrote:

I don't agree with this one sided definition of Arch's simplicity.... "easy go for devs and let users take the headage".

There is seldom any headage. Most packages are at revision 1 (for example, 2.3-1), and this _always_ means that the package was upgraded to a new version of the software, and nothing more.

You have to understand that the intention is to make it as painless as possible for the packagers to do their job quickly. With few, but important features, Arch is easy to learn for both developers and users, and this increases the possibilities of turning more users into developers, which is what Arch needs. This is the path to a kick-ass, well-maintained distro.

I had made my own packages just days after first installing Arch, which I think speaks volumes of the simplicity and carefully-selected feature set -- in all my five previous years with RPM based distros, never once had I made a package of my own (though I tried reading docs on how to do it).

I hope the developers never lose sight of the simplicity mantra. It's quite unique to Arch.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-07-22 17:32:18

Suggestion: An organized changelog?

#2 2004-07-22 18:09:29

Re: Suggestion: An organized changelog?

#3 2004-07-22 20:22:53

Re: Suggestion: An organized changelog?

#4 2004-07-22 20:45:29

Re: Suggestion: An organized changelog?

#5 2004-07-22 20:56:19

Re: Suggestion: An organized changelog?

#6 2004-07-22 22:09:41

Re: Suggestion: An organized changelog?

#7 2004-07-23 03:28:28

Re: Suggestion: An organized changelog?

#8 2004-07-23 06:21:39

Re: Suggestion: An organized changelog?

#9 2004-07-23 09:22:06

Re: Suggestion: An organized changelog?

#10 2004-07-23 11:43:47

Re: Suggestion: An organized changelog?

Board footer