Re: Horrific new levels of changelog abuse
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <shalehperry@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Somewhat often the problem reported by a user is fixed by changing some other
> section of code, a rewrite, etc. As is often the case, Debian can make life
> easier for the user by translating coder speak into reasonable information.
> There have been many instances where a changelog entry says "fixed by the
> upstream" and I could not for the life of me find out how in their changelog.
Therein lies the problem.
As far as the BTS is concerned, it is irrelevant how a bug is fixed.
As long as it can be verified that the bug is fixed, then it can be
closed. Understanding how the code works does not come into it, unless
the given fix can only be verified through code review.
How a bug is fixed is however relevant to the changelog.
But the relevance is in the change itself, not the fact that it fixed a
bug in the Debian BTS. From that we can draw the conclusion that
upstream changes do not belong in the Debian changelog if the only
reason for them being there is that they caused a Debian bug to be
closed.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: