Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
* Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> [030526 21:41]:
> > 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.
> > [...]
> It is _not_ obvious, and "closes: #..." gives no clue to someone reading the
> changelog what might have been changed. Internet access, knowledge of
> debbugs, etc. are not prerequisites for being able to make use of a
Then why do you limit your critic to the bug closed. Which bugs are
closed are often the least interisting item of a new version.
While I agree a "New version" is quite a short changelog entry, and most
likely would be better if describing the new version, upstream changes
have quite often much things changed. And I'd rather prefer more
important changes described there, than that one specific bug was fixed.
In this situation there is little to do about the bug otherwise, than
closing the bug with a message, that this was fixed upstream and
this version was uploaded. And the mail generated when putting a
(closed:# ...) after a changelog entry describes this with nice
words and with much less chance to make additional errors.
Bernhard R. Link
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.