[Herbert and Clint removed from CC] On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 04:17:41PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > > > > Nope, upstream changes go into the upstream changelog. debian/changelog > > > > should only contain Debian changes. > > > > > > The above snippet certainly suggests to me that all those bugs were > > > requests for a new upstream release. > > > > To the contrary, I interpret it to mean that these bugs have been fixed > > by changes unique to this particular upstream release in the context of > > Debian. > > Those bug numbers should go into the upstream changelog. > debian/changelog should only refer to bugs closed by Debian changes. That's one consistent approach. The other is to document Debian bugs closed by upstream changes along with an explanation of the upstream change itself. I think including such information under "new upstream release", is both courteous and convenience, and thus should be tolerated. But omitting it entirely in favor of manual closure of bugs, as you suggest, is also acceptable in my view. Closing the bug without an explanation is what I object to. -- G. Branden Robinson | You are not angry with people when Debian GNU/Linux | you laugh at them. Humor teaches branden@debian.org | them tolerance. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- W. Somerset Maugham
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature