Re: Horrific new levels of changelog abuse

[Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org>]

Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk> a tapoté :

> On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 10:21, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > The only disagreement is with what to do with upstream changes that
> > happen to close Debian bugs.
> 
> Is there any chance of everyone agreeing to leave it up to the
> maintainer to decide whether or not to document such changes
> in the Debian changelog?  A big advantage of such an agreement
> would be that it would reduce the amount of time wasted on
> discussions like this one.

One other solution with the same advantage would be a vote and a
Debian policy update.

I'm sorry but this problem is not just up to the maintainer. It's a
concern for users and, so, the whole wide Debian distribution
quality. 

And in fact, the disagreement is not "what to do with upstream changes
that happen to close Debian bugs". You can close it with the ChangeLog
or with nnnn-done@bugs.debian.org, both solutions are sensible.

The disagreement is with what information does the maintainer must
provide when he closes a Debian bug fixed upstream. More specifically
here, what information include does the maintainer must include in the 
ChangeLog when he decides to close a bug fixed upstream via the
ChangeLog.  

I believe that providing 

        "Closes #nnnn"

is not enough in any cases. That what appears in some ChangeLog (but
it could happen with the mail method also), and that's what generate
so much traffic on the list, because, apparently, there are not so
many people willing to defend that approach. 

A vote/pool can be interesting.


 

-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
    http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
    http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english