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

Re: Please don't misuse the debian/changelog to close bugs!



Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:

> Gerfried Fuchs <alfie@debian.org> wrote:
>> 
>> During some of the discussions lately on debian-devel another usage of
>> the changelog has risen interest:
>> 
>> * New upstream release (closes: #123, #124, #125)
>> 
>> This has also raised some discussions. The thing is this: If #123,
>> #124 and #125 aren't just "New upstream version available" bugreports
>> then quite some people dislike this behavior. It shouldn't be too much
>> hazzle for the maintainer to rewrite this as follows:
>
> I strongly disagree with your view.  Please respond to my points
> that have been raised previously rather than repeating this dogma.

It's pointless to go through this again.  Instead, I'll offer a concrete
example of the confusion this can create (the original submitter asks
for clarification of how the bug was fixed):

http://bugs.debian.org/188740

>> * New upstream release (closes: #123) which includes:
>>   - tmpfile race condition fix (closes: #124)
>>   - manual page included (closes: #125)
>> 
>> The thing is: It helps the users and the person who reported the bug to
>> see what bug exactly was closed without the need for them to dig in the
>> BTS. This is no must but it is something your users would be greatful if
>> you could do it.
>
> As I have said before, this is incomplete: only bugs that were reported
> and identified are listed, and redundant: these changes should be in
> the upstream changelog already.

I don't see anything particularly helpful in the upstream changelog for
the above example.

-- 
Poems... always a sign of pretentious inner turmoil.

Attachment: pgpMfTtvSlNUp.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: