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

Re: Bug#193497: marked as done (svtools: svsetup uses bashism "echo -e")

On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:34:43AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 > >  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.
 > 	I thinik a good changelog should not require one to go off to
 >  an external document, remotely located, to determine what the change
 >  was. 

 Uh?  less /usr/share/doc/package/changelog.gz  That ain't what I call
 "remote".  But yes, we should stick to our long standing tradition of
 good and informative changelogs.  For example:

  * DISCLAIMER: All three of the above changelog entries did in fact change
    the state of the files in this source. It is the opinion of the
    maintainer (hereto after refered to as GOD), that the changes made do
    in fact make the package(s) better. GOD does not warantee that these
    changes will make your life (be it sex life, or no life) better. GOD
    does guarantee that you (hereto after refered to as NON-DIETY) will
    gain great wisdom simply by using this(these) package(s). The
    NON-DIETY shall not, in any event, hold GOD responsible for misreadings
    of these statements.

  * Ok, the 51 pages of flaming in tis bug report leads me to believe that
    this will never be resolved in glibc. IMO, it is up to the programmer
    to be smart enough to check these things (where it matters). I am
    closing this bug report on the precedence that it is not really a bug
    because current functionality meets specs (and this bug report would
    break that compatibility). This entire bug report should be archived
    all on it's own. Hell, it should have it's own BTS just to track the
    conversation. closes: #28251

 Joking aside, I'm not advocating for uninformative changelogs.  I'm
 asking this particular pissing contest to be taken out of d-d (taking
 the _other_ pissing contests out of d-d would be a plus, but that
 wouldn't be d-d anymore, would it?)

 > 	This is not dotting i'sand crossing t's. this is information
 >  that is inherent to a changelog; and writing poer changelogs must be
 >  encouraged.

 Sure.  You are welcomed to use <package>@packages.debian.org for that.


Reply to: