Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
One reason for
putting the entries in version number order rather than in
chronological order was so that debuild -v3.6.1-5 would close all the
bugs tagged fixed-in-experimental from 3.7.0-1 and 3.7.0-2. To be
honest, I didn't investigate whether the right thing would have
ha
Anthony Towns writes:
> Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>>>Travis Crump wrote:
>>>>Should changelogs be in chronological order or should they be in
>>>>version number order?
>>>The changelog should be in the order changes were
Matthew Dempsky wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
Travis Crump wrote:
Should changelogs be in chronological order or should they be in
version number order?
The changelog should be in the order changes were made.
Isn't that necessarily chronological order?
Not if you're merging two bra
Anthony Towns writes:
> Travis Crump wrote:
>> Should changelogs be in chronological order or should they be in
>> version number order?
>
> The changelog should be in the order changes were made.
Isn't that necessarily chronological order?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Travis Crump wrote:
Should changelogs be in chronological order or should they be in version
number order?
The changelog should be in the order changes were made.
Specifically I just noticed that libtiff4's changelog is
out of chronological order[attached for reference]. It seems tha
Should changelogs be in chronological order or should they be in version
number order? Specifically I just noticed that libtiff4's changelog is
out of chronological order[attached for reference]. It seems that the
maintainer was maintaining two branches: an experimental
branch[3.6.1-3-&
6 matches
Mail list logo
