%changelog not in descending chronological order

[Kacper Kornet]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:49:45AM +0200, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> Hi,

> > [jajcus at jajo rpm-build-tools]$ ../builder -bb rpm-build-tools.spec 
> > builder: SMP make flags are set to -j1
> > Already up-to-date.
> > Available branches: AC-brach AC-branch DEVEL LIBCHAMPLAIN_0_8 NEW_PEAR_REQUIRES PATCH_MD5 PLD RA-branch master niceprint rpm-4_1-15_1 rpm-4_4_3 rpm-4_4_6 rpm-4_4_7 rpm_files/master tag_checking
> > Building target platforms: i686-linux
> > error: %changelog not in descending chronological order
> > Error: package build failed. (no more info)

> I have examined the generated changelog in the temporary spec file and indeed:

> > %changelog
> > * Wed Jul 11 2012 Kacper Kornet <draenog at pld-linux.org> c9933bf
> > Add help message explaining how to push branch for the first time

> > [...]
> > * Wed Jul 11 2012 Kacper Kornet <draenog at pld-linux.org> ace99bc
> > Check for existence of tag during tagging

> > * Tue Jul 10 2012 Kacper Kornet <draenog at pld-linux.org> 8b6d179
> > tag_exist accepts preexisting tag pointing to HEAD

> > * Wed Jul 11 2012 Kacper Kornet <draenog at pld-linux.org> c9100f1
> > Simplify code in tag_files as TAGVER and TAG are mutually exclusive
> > [...]

> That can be because 'git rev-list', used to generate the changelog,
> returns the commits ordered by commit date and not the AuthorDate

A little more complicated. Even if the commit dates were the same as the
author dates but parent - child relations were still the same, this three
commits would be returned in by git rev-list in the same order.

And the reason for order of this commit is that I developed them in
order:

8b6d179
c9100f1
ace99bc

and then before push change their order with git rebase -i to keep
related commits close to each other. In the meantime the UTC midnight
has passed so here is the result.


But you are right, that probably --date-order should be used. It
wouldn't change the order in changelog in this situation, but it others
it can.

> (and we want AuthorDate in the changelog)???

My logic was: the author not commiitter is shown, therefore the author
date is also shown.


-- 
  Kacper