In D13822#237298, @Staudey wrote:

We're going to need a changelog / release notes, or a link to them.

Here's the link to the 3.40 release notes.

https://www.sqlite.org/releaselog/3_40_0.html

Do I need to add that link in the summary or something Staudey or did you just need it for reference?

No, I don't only need it for my own reference (in that case I would've just looked for it myself ?) Every package version update needs either a full changelog (if short), summarized changelog, and/or link to changelog(s), in the summary. Sorry for not expressing that clearly enough before. I incorrectly assumed you were already aware of that particular aspect of packaging.

Please add one or more links to the changelog(s)/release notes covering the versions between 3.34.1 to (including) 3.40.0. (I guess the list of changes is far too big to put it into the summary directly)

Ok, no problem, I'll add those!

In D13822#237298, @Staudey wrote:

We're going to need a changelog / release notes, or a link to them.

Ok, the links are in there, let me know if I need to reformat them, it looked like there wasn't a standard for that whem providing links based on another recent update I saw.

That does look much neater

In D13822#237323, @Icosahunter wrote:

In D13822#237298, @Staudey wrote:

We're going to need a changelog / release notes, or a link to them.

Ok, the links are in there, let me know if I need to reformat them, it looked like there wasn't a standard for that whem providing links based on another recent update I saw.

Yeah, no, like unfortunately a lot when it comes to formatting patches (and package.yml's) there's not necessarily a rule/standard here. Probably wouldn't hurt if we could at some point write additional documentation to that end (and first discuss and agree to some common standards).

FWIW in this case, or other cases when there are A LOT of changelog, I would be happy to accept a link to a single page, where all changelogs are listed, in this case for example https://www.sqlite.org/chronology.html (better if one can link directly to the relevant part of the page, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be possible here; that is, link directly to 3.40.0, so when new items are added it still leads you directly to where you want to look)

Since you've already put in the effort to link all separate changelogs, I've just taken the liberty of formatting it a bit differently (it's a huge collection of links, so I don't know if what I arrived at is necessarily better, I just preferred it a tiny bit).

I'm going to wait until after the sync to merge this, I think, to get some more testing in. Personally I've been using this patch for a week and haven't noticed any issues, but I don't use THAT many of the reverse dependencies on a regular basis.

In D13822#237333, @Staudey wrote:

In D13822#237323, @Icosahunter wrote:

In D13822#237298, @Staudey wrote:

We're going to need a changelog / release notes, or a link to them.

Ok, the links are in there, let me know if I need to reformat them, it looked like there wasn't a standard for that whem providing links based on another recent update I saw.

Yeah, no, like unfortunately a lot when it comes to formatting patches (and package.yml's) there's not necessarily a rule/standard here. Probably wouldn't hurt if we could at some point write additional documentation to that end (and first discuss and agree to some common standards).

FWIW in this case, or other cases when there are A LOT of changelog, I would be happy to accept a link to a single page, where all changelogs are listed, in this case for example https://www.sqlite.org/chronology.html (better if one can link directly to the relevant part of the page, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be possible here; that is, link directly to 3.40.0, so when new items are added it still leads you directly to where you want to look)

Since you've already put in the effort to link all separate changelogs, I've just taken the liberty of formatting it a bit differently (it's a huge collection of links, so I don't know if what I arrived at is necessarily better, I just preferred it a tiny bit).

I'm going to wait until after the sync to merge this, I think, to get some more testing in. Personally I've been using this patch for a week and haven't noticed any issues, but I don't use THAT many of the reverse dependencies on a regular basis.

Ok, sounds good, let me know if there's anything more I can do here!