bug#81116: 31.0.60; [FR] ELPA: Include changelog in the Atom feeds

Philip Kaludercic <[email protected]> writes:

> Daniel Mendler <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Philip Kaludercic <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Daniel Mendler <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Philip Kaludercic <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> But indeed, I wouldn't worry too much, and if the snapshot feeds are not
>>>>>> great, so be it. I usually write "* Development" headers in my
>>>>>> changelog, so if you scan for headers including the string "devel" it
>>>>>> would work.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be clear, I was not thinking about just scanning headers, but using
>>>>> `org-export-select-tags'.  We should probably get some Org people in for
>>>>> ideas if we decide to go this way.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, yes, but I am not in favor of requiring :tags: in changelogs.
>>>
>>> I would be interested to hear why not.  It would of course not be
>>> required in general, just to get the "better" changelog support
>>
>> In my opinion it is better to be more permissive, and not prescribe a
>> fixed format, in order to increase adoption. Ideally this should just
>> work. I have little interest in adapting my changelogs for instance, if
>> a simple scan would just work as well. The scanner could be tested
>> against a few changelog formats which are currently used by ELPA
>> packages.
>
> OK, so this is the question it boils down to.  I think that it would be
> good to raise this question among a wider group of package maintainers
> to get some more feedback, otherwise this is just the perspective of a
> package author and an archive maintainer (to exaggerate) that obviously
> have different priorities.

Of course, go ahead. All I hope is that we don't end up with an
over-engineered format. I am not even sure if there is agreement on
using Org, Markdown or plain text. As far as I know there are some lax
standards for plain text change logs, but they are likely lacking in
comparison with Org.

>> To be clear, this feature request is really a low priority detail, where
>> the packaging infrastructure could be polished, hopefully with little
>> effort. But if it means that we have to prescribe a rigid changelog
>> format, create unnecessary churn, or if the implementation is too
>> complicated on the ELPA side, I think we should not do it.
>
> I don't think that my suggestion is that rigid or controversial.  I just
> say that .org changelogs that use a :release: tag to mark the headings
> that describe the latest release are last release are used generate the
> contents of the atom feed entry for that release.  The details are of
> course up to discussion, but I am surprised that you anticipate that
> using a tag would be that controversial.  To me, it seems easier than
> having to deal with different kinds of headings
>
> * Version 1.2.3
> * Release 1.2.3
> * Release of Version 1.2.3
> * The release of 1.2.3
> * 1.2.3 Changelog
> * Changes in 1.2.3
> * Version 1.2.3 released
> * Announcing Foo 1.2.3
> * Announcing Foo 1.2.3
> * New Version Bar (1.8.2026)
> ...
>
> I would anticipate that whatever format we support, people will want us
> to relax the format to support whatever their preferred style is, for
> the sake of being inclusive, where each change might backfire and cause
> more and more false positives.  All in all not the end of the world, but
> if we can avoid this sticky situation by just saying "use a tag" then it
> seems well worth it for me.

I am not sure I see the problem you're trying to solve. When we know the
version 1.2.3, we can simply scan all headlines for 1.2.3, take the
first headline and we will be good?

>>>>>>>> Daniel