Hi, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:59:40PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > > * New upstream version (Closes: #193497) > > > > Meep. No. > > > > Write proper changelogs and(or close bugs the right way[tm]. That > > form is only acceptable for "New upstream version, please package it" > > like bugs. > > With all due respect: piss off. > > Is this a new sport in #d-d or something like that? I read that entry > as "the new upstream version fixes the problem reported in #193497", > and looking at the BTS that is exactly its meaning. yes. And what is when someone is offline and wants to see what that bug was about? But we discussed that already enough on this list... > I'm sure there's a thousand better things to do with your time (hint: > fixing bugs) other than nitpicking at changelog entries because they Oh, you think I don't do that? I do that and when I read mails and see such mails I don't know why I should reply to it... > don't include the last period and last comma you want them to. It doesn't need to. It just should say what the bug was about or how the procedure was to fix it. Nothing more... > This changelog-policying camp is becoming very very counter-productive. I don't think so. Changelogs are important and they should not be written in such way because that renders them more or less useless... /me goes adding questions about that to his NM templates... Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Attachment:
pgpoQoFj97kNG.pgp
Description: PGP signature