Re: Accepted gimp 2.0.0-1 (i386 source all)
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 01:59:34AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Ari Pollak wrote:
> > Changes:
> > gimp (2.0.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> > * New upstream release
> > - Closes: #21393, #29375, #64000, #70461, #101266, #108834, #200357
> > - Closes: #109344, #111128, #114716, #117061, #117866, #112053
> > - Closes: #119073, #121437, #128968, #144324, #145503, #110274
> > - Closes: #147693, #150451, #151994, #152072, #153631, #179951
> > - Closes: #154022, #154722, #157265, #157265, #158629, #198677
> > - Closes: #169328, #161959, #169541, #169914, #233105, #199101
> > - Closes: #211355, #191762, #183711, #176648, #175692, #183706, #201432
>
> uuuugh.
>
> Could you please write sane changelogs (i.e. mention what those bugs are
> about?). Changelogs should describe changes and mostly tell people what
> has changed even though they don't have network connection to actually
> look up those bugs (besides this is annoying for that huge number)
>
> it's not that hard and if you see the bug and notice it is fixed you
> could write a few letters more to write an explanation....
What's more, it doesn't appear that he actually verified any of these, nor
that they have anything to do with the new release. There are comments in
the BTS like "I don't think this happens anymore in newer versions".
So, these bugs should never have been closed in the changelog in the first
place (which explains why they don't have proper changelog entries).
--
- mdz
Reply to: