In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: : : I'd love that feature too. But that either requires a damn good script, or : that everybody uses the same .changes format.
"Obviously", everyone should use the same .changes format... but I don't care what that is, which is why I stayed out of the discussion the last time it was underway. : Given that we had that a rather use- and resultless discussion about a "human : readable" vs "machine parsable" format, I am not sure whether we can arrive : there. I never saw the conflict as unresolvable, and I bet that if some useful automation (like what is proposed here) would result, everyone might feel differently about the value of coming to concensus. If we're just arguing about what do or don't like to read on the list, and some hypothetical automation, it's less real than when there's a specific result we're trying to achieve. : I like Bill's "dchanges" and use it. Do I dream when I think we could : establish the use of posting PGP signed dchanges output? I've thought about this a bit, and I wouldn't classify adding PGP signatures to the posted dchanges output as something that's really important to do really soon. However, if we were to open up dchanges for some work, and built some automation around the package upload process, then it would certainly seem reasonable to consider adding this while we're at it. I'm too busy right now (got other folks arriving here tonight and tomorrow to integrate pieces of the satellite payload I'm working on... as a hobby!), but if there's any sense of a concensus that the Pending directory concept is worthwhile, I'm willing to work on the tools, say, in the Jan/Feb timeframe. Bdale
