Re: Bug#193497: marked as done (svtools: svsetup uses bashism "echo -e")
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 07:33:27AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> The Debian changelog has a different emphasis than the upstream changelog.
> A relatively minor upstream change could have significant Debian effect, and
> vice versa. Debian bug closures are a only special case of this general
> principle. If the information is presented in a different context, or with
> different emphasis, which makes it more valuable to its audience, then it is
> not redundant.
I guess then you're targetting the people who're reading the Debian
changelog rather than someone who's looking at the BTS.
If that's the case then this is suboptimal. The reason is that only
bugs that happen to be filed prior to the first Debian release of the
new upstream version are noted that way. This is incomplete for someone
who's looking for a list of upstream changes from a Debian perspective.
It is my opinion that it is better to not list them at all in order to
not give the read a false impression that these changes are in any way
representative.
If you're targetting people reading the BTS, then my previous argument
still stands: the only piece of information that is necessary for the
closure of bug #xxx is that it's fixed in version x.y.z.
> It is clearly useful to associate bug reports with the corresponding fixes,
> and upstreams do not, in general, reference Debian bug reports. This is one
> reason why the upstream changelog is not a substitute for useful Debian
> changelog entries for upstream changes.
But what purpose does it serve if it only lists *some* of the bugs. This
could be improved if we included retroactive bug fixes, e.g.,
foo (x.y-2) unstable; urgency=low
* Fixed in previous release by upstream:
. Fixed crash when reading from IDE device (closes: #xxx)
-- .....
foo (x.y-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release.
-- .....
Is this what you're advocating? If not, what good is 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: