On Tuesday 04 December 2007, I wrote: > On Tuesday 04 December 2007, Joey Hess wrote: > > This avoids a majority of merge conflicts, I don't see anything > > illogical about it since the sig is updated on dch -r. > > Because the sig no longer matches the last update. > I can kind of understand the reasoning behind the change, but if you want > the sig to be meaningless for UNRELEASED changelog entries, it should IMO > be really meaningless, i.e. containing a fictional name/email and a > clearly incorrect date, like: > > -- Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 01 Jan 0000 00:00:00 +0000
But that would of course break the multi-maintainer function of dch... > Keeping the sig/date for the random first person who opens a new release > entry makes no sense to me. In that case I expect the sig to be updated > when I modify the changelog. Oh well, never mind then. But I'll have to consider to start using the -t option with dch as I still feel that not updating the sig is the incorrect thing to do if it is only to avoid a minor inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
