[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Accepted bwidget 1.6.0-1 (all source)

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:15:37PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:

> 1. To show others, especially NM's, what not to do.  NM's mostly learn
>    by example, and I think it helps to ensure they don't follow bad
>    examples.

> 2. It's something that should be obvious.  Producing poor quality
>    changelogs shows a real neglect for the quality of Debian overall,
>    and they deserve to be publicly reprimanded.

"Obvious" is a key word indicating that you need to check your
assumptions at the door.  While I will certainly concede that changelogs
that spell out the nature of relevant upstream changes are more useful
than those which do not, the only argument extended that persuades me
it's worth extra effort on my part is that it impacts the work of our
long-suffering Security Team.  It disappoints me that anyone would
consider this such a serious offense that it justifies prolonged
flogging on a public mailing list.

While using the changelog to close bugs without explaining what was done
or to close bugs that were not fixed by the upload in question should
not be tolerated, you're getting upset about bug closings that
absolutely *do* include a description of what the maintainer changed in 
order to fix them: incorporating a "new upstream release".  That this is
too succinct for some applications does not make it "changelog abuse".
Nor, BTW, is it changelog abuse to have forgotten to close a fixed bug
in the changelog: your hard-line stance invites maintainers to simply
close *all* bugs manually after upload, which makes the changelog a much
less useful tool on many levels.

> 3. It publicly shows which developers are not really involved in the
>    community.  If they were involved, they would know how to write a
>    proper changelog.  Developers who aren't involved in the community
>    don't belong in Debian, IMO.


> 4. I'd be willing to guarantee that any maintainer who can't handle
>    something as simple as a changelog is probably making many more
>    critical mistakes in their package.  Therefore, I think it's
>    important to point out these maintainers in public so everyone is
>    aware of them.

Some of us are a little more focused on those aspects of our packages
that are actually mandated by policy.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpiCd1X2AEhv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: