| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, P, 23.09.2018 kell 21:39, kirjutas Alec Warner: |
| 2 |
> I don't see a problem with 'version bump' as a description. Sometimes |
| 3 |
> you bump an ebuild because upstream released a new version and you |
| 4 |
> want to track. I'm fairly against changes describing what was changed |
| 5 |
> (typically the reader can git show and observe the changes.) The |
| 6 |
> useful information is *why* the change was made. Sometimes its |
| 7 |
> because "upstream released a new version." |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Like Matt I'm curious what others expect to see in the description. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I expect to see the version number being bumped to. At least something |
| 12 |
like |
| 13 |
"cat/pkg: bump to 1.2.3" |
| 14 |
This help tremendously for git shortlog, and just "bump" is something |
| 15 |
you do all the time, so not a good summary. But bump to a specific |
| 16 |
version is a good summary, as it says it exactly enough and in summary. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
However Matthew does that already, in the form of |
| 19 |
"cat/pkg: 1.2.3 bump". |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't agree with "bup", but it indeed mostly has been "bump" now, and |
| 22 |
my only problem there is that I'm not used to that order (vs "bump to |
| 23 |
1.2.3"). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Mart |
Archives