Re: When not to close a bug in a changelog...
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 01:19:28PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
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.
This assumes that the maintainer has seen the nmu get done, and has then gone
the extra step(s) of fetching the source from the archive.
I'm assuming nothing. Again, if the maintainer didn't do this, *the NMU
changelog entries won't be in the changelog*. If you incorporate an NMU,
with its associated changelog entry, everything is nicely documented. If
you drop an NMU on the floor entirely then the NMU changelog entry won't
be in your changelog. I suppose you could incorporate the NMU change
without including the NMU changelog entry, but why on earth would you do
that unless you're trying to hide the fact the NMU was done? If you do
this bizarre thing then yes, you should include a changelog entry in
the changelog, but I think this is a non-optimal case that certainly
shouldn't be trumpeted as "the Right Way to Do It".