Rahul Sundaram píše v Út 27. 01. 2009 v 14:36 +0530:
Dan Horák wrote:
> Both sides in the "Lack if update information" thread are true. The
> presented information about changes is almost useless for the user, but
> rewriting the upstream changelogs into bodhi is a superfluous burden for
> the maintainers. There is, in my opinion, a technical solution for this
> issue that can make both sides happy.
I didn't ask for upstream changelogs to be rewritten within bodhi. If
there is a upstream changelog, just adding a reference would be very
helpful. If that can be automated, that's great.
> And it is new "ChangeLog" tag in RPM. It should be an URL pointing to
> upstream changelog and GUI package management tools can open a browser
> window to show the content, like they do for the home page.
This might solve part of the problem. It doesn't solve the problem where
downstream bugs are not referred to or closed for example. The thing is
that this process requires human intelligence and cannot be completely
automated in all cases.
There is some support in Makefile.common to transfer bug numbers from
package changelog to bodhi.
Dan