Re: Horrific new levels of changelog abuse
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
>
> I think I do understand your position; I simply disagree. I feel that
> changes which close Debian bugs should be documented in debian/changelog
> whether or not they are Debian-specific changes, because:
>
> - The bug submitter should receive a reasonable explanation for the bug's
> closure in the -done message
Well can you please give an operable definition of what a reasonable
explanation is?
I've read a number of closure messages on bugs of your packages, and
they really coveyed no more information than a message which simply
said that the bug is fixed in version x.
> - Other Debian packages may be affected by the bug, requiring versioned
> dependencies
This is irrelevant unless we start putting all closures in debian/changelog.
Otherwise you miss out on all bugs closed manually.
Although this is a worthy goal, it should be addressed in the BTS and
not debian/changelog.
> - The fact that the bug was reported to the Debian BTS means that the bug
> (and hence the fix) is relevant to Debian users and deveopers
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic on this point. There is a lot
of information that is relevant to Debian users and developers, that
is no reason for them to end up in debian/changelog.
--
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: