[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 <russell@coker.com.au>  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

Reply to: