Re: Bug#193497: marked as done (svtools: svsetup uses bashism "echo -e")
Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> For a start, you can try to attack my argument in
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg00244.html
>
> In order for that argument to fly, you'd need to add an additional
> changelog entry that said something like:
>
> * Bug fixes in upstream release (closes: #xxx ...)
>
> since I read any bug closed after the "New upstream release" as requests
> for the new release.
I disagree that this is necessary. Firstly it isn't needed for the BTS.
As I've said already, as far as the bug reporter is concerned, knowing
that #xxx is (claimed to be) fixed in version x.y.z is sufficient. As for
the Debian changelog, the close tag is just an added bonus since it's not
a Debian change anyway.
After all, the maintainer could just have a script which removed the
close tags from "New Upstream Release" messages and stored them in a
local file which then causes messages to be sent to xxx-done when the
acceptance message is received from debian-installer. This would be
indistuingishable from the case where the maintainer noticed the bugs
after the upload and then closed them by hand.
> Still, I don't think a single changelog entry should ever close multiple
> bugs unless the bugs all pertain to the same issue for other reasons
> that what the bug submitter sees.
In that case I think you may have misunderstood my point. The reason
that a single entry shouldn't close *different* bugs is that those bugs
are presumably fixed by *different* Debian changes. This simply doesn't
apply in the upstream case.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: