Re: Please don't misuse the debian/changelog to close bugs!
Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Huh? The bug report was a feature request with a patch. The bug was
> closed with the description of "New Upstream Release". No indication
> was given whether the patch was integrated upstream, or implemented
> differently (with a different interface). I don't consider this
> information "documentation of random features".
The bug report is ultimately about the adding of a feature. The bug
closure indicates that this feature has been added. The fact that how
that feature is implemented is a documentation issue.
> Uhh, I didn't. In fact, *you* are the one trying to dictate what goes
> in upstream changelogs, which is utterly pointless. Every upstream is
> different, and Debian has absolutely no control what upstream decides to
> put in their changelogs. That's why we must standardize[1] our changelog
> entries, so that the pertinent information will be available regardless
> of what upstream does.
Are you proposing that we list important upstream changes regardless of
whether they fix bugs or not?
If so then this may be worth considering.
But it is a major departure from what you have been arguing in the past.
However, if you're listing upstream changes in debian/changelog on the
basis that they close Debian bugs, then I disagree completely since this
is in no way representative as to how the package has changed. It's
merely supplying information for the BTS which is not needed.
--
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: