Re: Accepted kaffe 1:1.1.1-1 (i386 source)
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 18:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I'm confused. We have three cases:
>
> 1. Close bug #12345 directly (12345-done), noting the version that fixed it.
> 2. Note in the changelog that bug #12345 is fixed; the bug receives a
> notification of the version that fixed it.
> 3. Note in the changelog that bug #12345, "ls --crash crashes", is
> fixed; the bug receives a notification of the version that fixed it.
>
> #3 is obviously ideal, if the maintainer has time; no debate there.
>
> However, you're saying that #1 is preferable to #2. Why? It seems to
> have no disadvantage to #1, with the added advantages that I can check
> which version fixed bug #12345 without hitting the network (since it's
> documented in the changelog), and saves developer time. What am I missing?
Start with Herbert Xu's premise...
> We've gone through this many times already. Upstream changes should
> not be documented in the Debian changelog, even if they fix bugs in
> the Debian BTS.
... and follow the bouncing ball.
--
Joe Drew <hoserhead@woot.net> <drew@debian.org>
My weblog doesn't detail my personal life: http://me.woot.net
Reply to: