"Marcelo E. Magallon" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:59:40PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > > * New upstream version (Closes: #193497) > > > > Meep. No. > > > > Write proper changelogs and(or close bugs the right way[tm]. That > > form is only acceptable for "New upstream version, please package it" > > like bugs. > > With all due respect: piss off. FWIW, my policy has become to only politely ask maintainers in private to use more verbose "New upstream version" changelog entries in the future, because it seems to be a religious issue for some. > Is this a new sport in #d-d or something like that? I read that > entry as "the new upstream version fixes the problem reported in > #193497", and looking at the BTS that is exactly its meaning. But the problem is that you don't describe what was reported in #193497. A entry that says: * Closes: xxxx also says this version fixes a problem reported in #xxxx, but I think we can all agree that's not an acceptable entry. In this case, an entry that simply says: * New upstream version, fixes bashism in svsetup (Closes: #193497) would be much more informative and only take a few additional seconds of your time to write. I find it puzzling why you'd so adamantly refuse to do something so trivial that is yet so useful. > I'm sure there's a thousand better things to do with your time (hint: > fixing bugs) other than nitpicking at changelog entries because they > don't include the last period and last comma you want them to. Not even closely analogous. > This changelog-policying camp is becoming very very > counter-productive. Only to you because you've chosen to fight it. However, poor changelog entries are very very counter-productive to anyone that is checking the bug history of your package. -- Poems... always a sign of pretentious inner turmoil.
Description: PGP signature