Re: Structured Changelogs for ELPA packages

Jean Louis <[email protected]> writes:

> On 2026-08-08 17:41, Andrew Hyatt wrote:
>>  (llm-chat (defconst ash/llm-ollama-gemma (make-llm-ollama :chat-model
>> "gemma4:e2b")) (llm-make-chat-prompt "A short history of the changes
>> to this module: Version 0.1 was the first version. Fixes to the
>> roasting function were made in 0.1.1. The issue was that the negative
>> roasting values could be obtained if there was just 1 roasting step.
>> In Version 0.2, I made several improvements so that now we can handle
>> several different roasting, subtypes, see variable
>> `roaster-roast-type' for details." :context "Take the input and turn
>> it into an org-list, with headings for major versions that have
>> underneath them in the hierarchy, headings for minor versions. Each
>> heading has the version number, and a list of changes is below.
>> Example output:

This example is interesting, but I don't think we will be using it for
ELPA.  There are entirely viable deterministic (and cheaper) means of
extracting the data we want.  Remember that this will be running
periodically on elpa.gnu.org, which isn't a computation powerhouse.

So I think we should veer this conversation back to the question of
whether (actual) package maintainers would be OK with specifying a
strict format for NEWS files, with some fixed changelog heading style as
was previously mentioned, or if no agreement is viable and we should
instead try our best server-side to detect sections in as many file
formats as possible.

> It is interesting but does it conform to the GNU Style of Change Logs
> policy?
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Style-of-Change-Logs.html

This too is not related to the actual topic of the discussion.  If you
are interested in continuing this conversation, please feel free to do
so on emacs-tangents without me in the CC list.