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


On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:59:25PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:35:28PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> [Something more descriptive than "New upstream version"]
> > Yes I expect you would find that information in the upstream changelog -
> > why would you expect to find it in the debian/changelog also?
> Mostly because the Debian changelog will tend to end up being the bug
> closing message (it certainly would be in the case in question).  When
> the bug is closed the submitter should have something a bit more useful
> to go on than "New upstream release".  That's almost as bad as a null
> closing message.

This doesn't seem to be anything unusual, though.  I've received many closing
reports that said only "new upstream release (closes:your bug)", and it's
all I need to know: the bug is fixed in a new version.

That said, if it's really a *high-priority* fix, it's probably useful for
others to know about the fix, too, so it wouldn't hurt to give a couple
extra words, even if it's just something like "fixes potential security
problem".  (If people want more detail, they can go to the upstream

(*That* said, is this really worth a thread?  Anyone wielding the
social contract stick over a changelog entry is just trolling.)

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: