Re: closing upstream bugs with debian/changelog
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 08:00:40AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 09:22:06PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> In that case could I possibly ask you to reply to the paragraph that
> >> you're disagreeing with rather than the first one that happens to
> >> come along?
> > Your opinion about changelogs is not new to me and I feel no need to rehash
> > that discussion. However, your claim that most developers agree with you is
> > new (and, I think, unfounded).
> Where did I claim that? Please reread my message. My claim was that
> most agreed with the notion of closing bugs with a single message sent
> to the -done address documenting the version of the package that the
> bug is fixed in.
That was the second of _two_ sweeping generalizations about a majority of
Debian developers that you made in the same message.
> Have you still got a problem with that claim?
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> wrote:
> If the Debian changelog is going to be used to close bugs in the Debian
> BTS, it needs to explain why those bugs are being closed. The above
Herbert Xu wrote:
> I understand that you set yourself at a standard above the rest of us
> which is all good, but this is not how the majority of Debian developer
Branden made a statement about explaining why bugs are closed in the
changelog, and you claimed that the majority of Debian developers don't do