Re: When not to close a bug in a changelog...
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 02:43:46PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
It is a change against _your_ latest version. The NMU was from someone
else. Now the bug is closed in the maintainers version, too.
If you didn't include the changes from the NMU, then the NMU's entry
wouldn't be in the changelog. I completely fail to understand why this
makes sense to you:
foo (1-2) unstable; urgency=low
* fix widget selection (Closes: #1442131)
* yup, we sure don't format the hard disk anymore (Closes: #1440000)
* no flaming cpu's either, just like it says below (Closes: #1440001)
-- Joe Blow <blow@debian.org>
foo (1-1.1) unstable; urgency=high
* don't format hard disk (Closes: #1440000)
* don't make cpu halt and catch fire (Closes: #1440001)
-- Someone Else <else@debian.org>
Alternatively, if you include some of the changes from the NMU and
revert others, you should document *that*, not waste bits talking about
changes that aren't. IOW, the assumption should be that changes are
carried forward, unless it specifically says that they aren't.
foo (1-2) unstable; urgency=low
* fix widget selection (Closes: #1442131)
* the format command *should* format the hard disk, NMU change reverted
-- Joe Blow <blow@debian.org>
foo (1-1.1) unstable; urgency=high
* don't format hard disk (Closes: #1440000)
* don't make cpu halt and catch fire (Closes: #1440001)
-- Someone Else <else@debian.org>
Mike Stone
Reply to: