Re: Accepted kaffe 1:1.1.1-1 (i386 source)
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:05:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> A proper entry is as follows:
>
> * New upstream release.
> * no longer does foo when bar happens. Closes: #12345
> * wrapper script rewritten to not use $$ in tempfile names. Closes: #12345
>
> Please, everyone remember, a changelog documents *changes*. It's not a tool
> to close bugs automatically.
It documents which revision closed bug #12345. That's useful information for
a changelog. It's certainly not worse than saying only "new upstream revision"
and closing the bugs manually.
> The BTS sends these close messages to the submitter when the bug is closed.
> However, the email above has no reason as to why the bug was closed. It's not
> sufficient to just say a new upstream version was uploaded, which just happens
> to fix the bug. As a submitter, would you feel satisified that you had just
> gotten such a mail?
Absolutely! I reported a bug, and the mail says that the bug I reported
has been fixed. That's all I need to know.
If I report "segmentation fault in ls", I--as a user of ls, not a
developer--couldn't care less about why it was segfaulting or how the
bug was fixed; I only care that it's been fixed. If a developer wants
to spend their limited time researching how the bug was fixed and
summarizing it in a changelog, great, but it's certainly not something I'd
expect everyone to do.
(As a user, I'd certainly be rather annoyed at receiving duplicate close
reports because someone reopened the bug for frivelous reasons, however.
I get enough junk mail already.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: