From tlumley at u.washington.edu  Sat Sep 10 18:48:10 2005
From: tlumley at u.washington.edu (Thomas Lumley)
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Rd] Issue tracking in packages
In-Reply-To: <m2mzml2b2c.fsf@macaroni.gateway.2wire.net>
References: <3.0.6.32.20050909015829.007bed60@pop.gmx.net>
	<3.0.6.32.20050909145010.007c2a70@pop.gmx.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.63a.0509090845050.619@homer23.u.washington.edu>
	<971536df05090910211d639ed1@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.63a.0509091029550.5570@homer23.u.washington.edu>
	<971536df05090910442796d89d@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.63a.0509091250220.5570@homer23.u.washington.edu>
	<17186.46037.468981.530188@mithrandir.hornik.net>
	<m2mzml2b2c.fsf@macaroni.gateway.2wire.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63a.0509100946190.17336@homer24.u.washington.edu>

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Seth Falcon wrote:
> For what its worth, I don't like this idea of adding a ChangeLog field
> to the DESCRIPTION file.
>
> Agreeing upon a standard location for NEWS or CHANGES or some such
> seems a more simple solution.  As long as the presence of such a file
> is *optional*.  And if the location really needs to be at the top,
> then the build tools could grab it from there as they do the
> DESCRIPTION file.

We're certainly agreed on its being optional.

 	-thomas



[Rd] Issue tracking in packages
Thomas Lumley