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

Re: lilo: bad changelog entry violates Social Contract

Hello Lazarus, 

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?"

Are you on crack flaming a maintainer without checking the facts? Maybe
it would have been more nice to include a summary of the problem which
is fixed. But at least he did a new release and it seems to work fine. 
So what is your problem? Please stop inventing problems and frustrating
committed Debian developers.

> Why can't some people write a reasonable changelog entry?  What happened

Why can't people spend their time on more important stuff like fixing
their mail setup? Not sure if that still applies but ever when I wanted
to get more info on bugs you submitted the address you used for sending
the report bounced.



Attachment: pgpyxfTEh0XHR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: