Re: lilo: bad changelog entry violates Social Contract
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 10:27:18PM +0000, Lazarus Long wrote:
> Package: lilo
> Version: 1:22.3.2-1
> lilo (1:22.3.2-1) unstable; urgency=HIGH
> * New upstream version.
> Closes: #136757
> -- Russell Coker <email@example.com> Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:34:00 +0200
> "WTF? If someone files a wishlist bug about a new upstream version,
> WHY would this qualify as urgency high? (And ALL-CAPS for some reason
> as well?) Is the maintainer on crack?"
We've had this argument.
The verdict last time was "the new upstream release obviously closes
bug #136757 and if I want to know more I should check the tracking
system, because changelogs are not meant to carry all the information
in the BTS".
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer