Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> [030526 21:41]:
> > 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
> > changelog.
> 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.
Bug fixes are one of the most interesting things in a changelog. This is
not the daily news, it is a record of what changed, and _when_.
> 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.
If there was a bug reported in the Debian BTS, then obviously it is relevant
to Debian users and should be recorded in the Debian changelog. Likewise
for any critical bugfix, such as a security fix or long-standing bug which
happens not to be in the BTS.
The type of changelog entry which only closes a bug is just the most common
example of documenting the wrong things.