Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis <luca@debian.org> a tapoté :
>
> You discriminate and offend people only by reading a list of
> changes, and i should be the one who suks (supposing i'm not right)?
He has the right to think that you sucks at filling changelogs,
regarding how you fill changelogs.
Anybody has the right to express a point of view on anybody else work,
right?
> > FFS, it's a *change*log -- so log the effing changes in it.
>
> The contraddiction of all this tread, is that: if i make a change to a package
> i've to list my change in the package changelog (Matt Zimmerman, no one ever
> objected this). If i build a new upstream, i've to list each change in
> the upstream changelog that let me declare a bug as closed; change that does
> not refer to the Debian package (but to the original upstream), and that i did
> not applied as part of my package working (because it was applied from the
> upstream).
You said you have "to list each change in the upstream changelog" to
know which bug can be declared as closed. And that's, as maintainer,
your job, isn't it? But is it users job to do it too?
> To demostrate how much this issue is stupid, i'll make any one here
> happy by including the entire upstream changelog in
> changelog.Debian.gz, next time i'll build a new upstream.
Is this mature?
You still did not answer to the question: is it too much extra work
you can afford to add in the changelog what permits you to declare a
bug closed?
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: