Simon Josefsson [20/Jul 9:08pm +02] wrote: > Yeah, for people initimiately familiar with that checklist I suppose > that is a good use-case for this. The information could be in a git > commit message though?
I think it ought to be in the tree because it corresponds to the state of the committed source. > Personally, I've never found the upgrade checklist relevant for > per-package upgrades. I find the checklist useful to understand what > changed between policy releases, but more as a curiosity to understand > general preferences over time. > > This is because 1) the upgrade checklist often lacks concrete actionable > recommendations, or 2) for those things which ARE concrete and > actionable, lintian and the Salsa CI/CD pipeline are a more > cost-effective way for me to discover what I need to do. > > Granted, I do run the risk of missing something really important that > the checklist say I should do. I don't think this is an advisable way to go about updating the Standards-Version field. I think I'd prefer you just didn't update it at all, than update it without being sure you captured everything. Patches to the upgrading checklist to improve its usefulness to you would be very welcome, btw. I write almost all the entries, but usually with the full context of the issue in my head at the time, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many of them assume too much to be useful. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
