Re: Bug#193497: marked as done (svtools: svsetup uses bashism "echo -e")
Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If you do
> * New upstream release (closes: #nnnnn)
>
> to close a bug nagging about a new upstream release, how do you destinct
> that from
> * New upstream release (closes: #nnnnn)
>
> which notes that the new upstream release also closes exactly one bug
> fixed by upstream?
What I am saying is that this distinction is NOT necessary. Let me repeat
what I've said above. It's not necessary for the BTS because the bug
reporter only needs to know that it is claimed to be fixed; it's not
necessary for the changelog because it is not a Debian change.
The issue Colin Watson brought up about tying bugs with close tags is
not relevant since that just looks at the tags rather than the message
before the them.
> Again, all I ask you for is to make an *effort* trying to write nice
> ChangeLogs when preparing a new upstream release. If you somehow miss a
> bug, close it via -done, (with preferably some nice words).
You still haven't got my point have you? Listing upstream changes in
Debian changelogs because they happen to close Debian bugs is both
redundant and incomplete. It is redundant because the entries are
already in the upstream changelog. It is incomplete because only the
changes where Debian bugs have been filed will be listed. Since it
is also unnecessary for the BTS, there is simply no good reason to do it.
--
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: