Re: Horrific new levels of changelog abuse
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 04:18:10PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think I do understand your position; I simply disagree. I feel that
> > changes which close Debian bugs should be documented in debian/changelog
> > whether or not they are Debian-specific changes, because:
> >
> > - The bug submitter should receive a reasonable explanation for the bug's
> > closure in the -done message
>
> Well can you please give an operable definition of what a reasonable
> explanation is?
A reasonable explanation includes enough information for:
- the submitter to recognize that their bug was in fact fixed
- a user to be able to read the changelog, with an idea of the bug in his
head, and find where it was fixed. For example, a stable user reading an
unstable changelog to see if a bug affecting him is fixed
- a developer to be able to determine what version of the package he needs
to depend on if he requires a certain fix which was requested through the
BTS
- the changelog to stand on its own, and be useful without digging through
the BTS
> I've read a number of closure messages on bugs of your packages, and
> they really coveyed no more information than a message which simply
> said that the bug is fixed in version x.
Can you provide an example? The rootstrap example you gave certainly
provided more information than "bug #xxxx was fixed"; it documented the
addition of a feature which justified the closure of the bug.
> > - Other Debian packages may be affected by the bug, requiring versioned
> > dependencies
>
> This is irrelevant unless we start putting all closures in debian/changelog.
> Otherwise you miss out on all bugs closed manually.
>
> Although this is a worthy goal, it should be addressed in the BTS and
> not debian/changelog.
My position on changelogs is completely unrelated to the BTS, because I
think that the changelog should stand on its own, documenting all changes to
the package which are considered relevant to Debian.
For example, if I am aware of an upstream bug which I think may be troubling
Debian users, and it is fixed in a new upstream release, I do not hesitate
to note this fact in the changelog.
It just happens that, to me, a Debian bug report is solid justification that
information about the fix is relevant to Debian. This seems self-evident to
me.
> > - The fact that the bug was reported to the Debian BTS means that the bug
> > (and hence the fix) is relevant to Debian users and deveopers
>
> I'm afraid I don't follow your logic on this point. There is a lot
> of information that is relevant to Debian users and developers, that
> is no reason for them to end up in debian/changelog.
I certainly did not suggest that all information that is relevant to Debian
users and developers should be in the changelog.
I do feel strongly that changes in the package which are relevant to Debian
users and developers, whether they happen to be in the debian/ directory or
not, should be documented in debian/changelog.
--
- mdz
Reply to: