[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: closing upstream bugs with debian/changelog

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:11:54PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> However, it is my firm belief that all bug submitters should respect
>> your work by actually verifying for themselves that the bug is indeed
>> fixed.
> I agree, they *should* do that.  But I can't count on it.  And by
> including the *specific reason* the bug is closed in my changelog entry,
> it easier for anyone who is appropriately equipped can do this task in
> lieu of the original submitter.

I'm not sure that I really buy this argument.  But let's assume that
there're people out there verifying that the bugs being closed are
really fixed.  Couldn't they get exactly the same information from
either the BTS (perhaps by subscribing to the PTS) or through the
upstream changelog?

In fact, if they are only looking at debian/changelog (or equivalently,
debian-devel-changes) and not the BTS then they'll miss all the bug
closures done directly through the BTS.  And if they are already looking
at the BTS, then they already see all the bug closures with the original
bug report attached.  So why does this information need to be repeated in
>> After all, you might have made a simple typo/think in writing or
>> verifying the fix to the bug.  It'd be a pity if it weren't picked up
>> just because the submitter was complacent.
> I agree, but this observation doesn't support your approach to resolving
> upstream bug reports in the Debian BTS any more than mine does.
> Actually, it may help mine more, because my approach communicates *why*
> I think the bug is resolved.  It is easier for people to impeach my
> judgement, instead of encouraging people to treat me as a guru.  "Oh,
> the bug was fixed upstream?  How?  Hmm, I can't see the reason.  The
> maintainer must know.  No need for me to bother verifying the fix."

Well on this we'll have to agree to disagree.  I contend that if the
presence of the explanation makes any difference here at all, it is
more likely to make the submitter take it at word-value and not verify
it for themselves.

But again this is the same argument based on the BTS, why aren't we
applying the same standard to closures done directly through the BTS?
I know that you probably are doing that already.  But it seems that
quite a few other participants in this thread are happy with closing
a bug in the BTS with a simple message saying that "this is fixed in
version x.y.z".

> As far as correcting past changelog entries goes, an examination of the
> SVN changelog for the XFree86 package changelog reveals multiple
> occurences of this just within the past week.

I don't understand your point here.
>> Besides, you can also provide the explanation by posting them to the
>> BTS directly.  Granted this is not as convenient as slipping them into
>> the Debian changelog, but alas we don't put things in the Debian
>> changelog just because it is convinient.  Otherwise we'd be closing
>> bugs fixed in past Debian versions (or bugs that aren't bugs at all)
>> using the Debian changelog.
> The reason we don't do that is because those don't represent changes in
> the package payload as of that version.

Agreed.  I'm just pointing out that the convenience factor cannot be
the reason why we're doing this.  And so far I haven't seen a reason
that I can accept yet.
>> So I personally find this argument to be very weak in terms of
>> motivating me in putting explanations next to bug closures caused
>> by upstream changes.
> The problem is that you're not providing any explanation at all for
> these, anywhere, except for "new upstream release".

Explanation for the BTS, or debian/changelog? So far most people seem
to agree with me that no explanation is needed for the BTS (Before you
object to that one, read the subthread between Matt Zimmerman and I).

As for debian/changelog, please restate your reason as to why the
explanation should be there at all.  Please make sure that the reason
does not refer to what message is sent to the BTS.

> Sadly, I do not have to do a double-take to understand that you have
> misinterpreted a compliment as a personal attack.

I must say that you have a strange way of complimenting people...
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: