Re: Changelogs (Re: Bug#193497: marked as done (svtools: svsetup uses bashism "echo -e"))
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
>
> It is my opinion that it is better to make the laughably small effort
> required to make the changelog more valuable. There is clearly no fault in
> excluding information that you do not have, nor in excluding information
> which you deem to be unimportant. However, I would argue that changes
> relating to existing, open bug reports are decidedly valuable to include.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I still maintain that listing
information that is by nature incomplete is a waste of time.
In any case, I hope that we can at least agree that all Debian changes
should be documented in debian/changelog, regardless of whether they
fix bugs or not.
> This is also useful, in a different way, when upstream does not include a
> useful changelog (kernel-source, for example).
Upstream does actually have a changelog. It's just not in the tarball.
I'll put it into the next package if I have enough time.
But in any case, having a necessarily incomplete list of upstream changes
still doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
--
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: