Re: Accepted kaffe 1:1.1.1-1 (i386 source)
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:34:58PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> It's not about summarizing how the bug was fixed. It's about summarizing the
> bug *itself* in the changelog.
>
> The description of the bug is already available(as the title of the bug
> report). At the very least this should be placed in the debian changelog.
How is this abusive? The maintainer is putting useful information in the
changelog (the release a given bug was fixed), and closing the bug in the
process. Not including a description of the bug seems no worse than not
listing closed bugs in the changelog at all, and closing them all separately
later on; I'm sure many maintainers without time to revisit lots of bugs after
each upstream release do this.
A script to convert eg.
* New upstream release .* (Closes: #1, #2, #3)
to
* New upstream release \1
* fixed "BTS summary line of #1" Closes: #1
* fixed "BTS summary line of #2" Closes: #2
* fixed "BTS summary line of #3" Closes: #3
in changelogs would probably go a lot further to correcting this very minor
issue than reopening dozens of bug reports that belong closed, annoying users
with BTS garbage, and repeating the same thread on debian-devel over and over.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: