Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> A changelog entry which says only Closes: #<bug> is worthless; it is the
> same as leaving the changelog empty and closing the bug by hand.
We are not speaking of a generic line with a "Closes: #1..."; we are speaking
of one of the most common chages: new upstream source close some bugs.
I don't realy see the point in bothering the maintainer in further explanation
of what happened: it is obvious and anyone has _all_ the information he may
need to find it for himself.
Should it ever happen to me, i would exactly think:
I do spend my time maintaing, fixing upgrading the software, keep in touch
with the upstream, forwarding report or any othern thing needed, so how do you
now dare to bother me because i did not write a verbose, futil and redundant
changelog entry? How could you tell me that writing what you wanted, would have
taken me only few minutes? Are you teling me that what i do isn't enough?
Your comment is only a waste of time for me that read the mail and for you who
wrote it: you would surely have spent less time seeing it for yourself then
reopening that bugs.
> This is not a bother to maintainers, and no amount of enhancement to
> apt-listchanges relieves the maintainer's responsibility to document his
I do think that complining because a maintainer worte "New upstream
closes: #1...", do not lead anywhere: it only bother the maintainer. Should i
ever write such an entry, please don't waste your time and mine.
Do you know what? I've more important things to do than spending my time
reading the last, never ending thread, about the most stupid issue in the open
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well
aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have
Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they
local LANG="it_IT@euro" | don't depend on the language.