On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:40:37 +1000 Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote: > I agree with you for Debian changes, after all, it is the Debian changelog. > Still, nobody has convinced me that there is any point to include upstream > changes there though. > > Perhaps I can put it another way. The reason it's wrong to have a > changelog entry like this > > * Closes: #xxx. > > is not because that it closes #xxx without a good reason. In fact, > for the purposes of closing #xxx, it is entirely satisfactory as > this is equivalent to stating that bug #xxx is fixed in the version > that contains this changelog entry. > > The reason it's bad is because it implies that this bug is fixed > by a Debian change, and that Debian change has not been documented > in the Debian changelog. Completely aside from what's "right" and "wrong", don't you think 'Upstream fixed segfault in --foo-bar (Closes: #12345)' presents the information in an easily-accessible manner?
Attachment:
pgpxGb8fzGWa2.pgp
Description: PGP signature