Re: Horrific new levels of changelog abuse
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:56:35AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:38:50PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > As far as the BTS is concerned, it is irrelevant how a bug is fixed.
> > Wrong. The BTS is a front-end to users. When bugs are closed, the
> > submitter(a normal user) is notified. This notification *must* include
> > a user-oriented response. "This is fixed" is not such a response.
> Speaking as a user, that's fine with me. All I care about is that it was
> fixed; as a user, I couldn't care less *how* it was fixed. It's
> irrelevant to me.
> "Doesn't crash when --foo is used" is not any more useful to me--the
> summary line of the bug is included with the acknowledgement mail, so
> that's redundant to me most of the time. (Of course, it may be more
> useful to others, but it seems we're talking about the BTS side of things
> here, not the changelog side.)
Your position overlooks the fact that you are most likely not the only user
of the package, nor the only user affected by the bug.
> Also, "bug 12345 fixed" is not useless; it'd be convenient if I want to
> find out in which version fixed a given bug.
It is practically useless. If you already have the bug number, then you
probably got it from the BTS, and the BTS will already contain enough
information for you to determine in which version the bug was closed.