> Bug #289643 was not a request for packaging the new upstream version: it > was a bug report complaining about the program failing to start. "New > upstream version" has nothing to do with why this bug was closed. Does valknut start now? Maybe new upstream version fixed that? I know changes in packaging didn't. > > Bug #269952 was not a request for packaging the new upstream version; it > was a report about broken icons. Are the Icons fixed now? Maybe new upstream version fixed that? I know changes in packaging didn't. > Bug #265284 was not a request for packaging the new upstream version; it > was a request to change some strings in the interface, which were changed > upstream. But "New upstream version" is not why this bug was closed. does the new version have a corrected strings? Maybe new upstream version fixed that? I know changes in packaging didn't. > Bug #270096 and bug #286234 are requests for the new upstream version. So > it is appropriate to list them as such. > > If you're going to use the upload bug-closing convenience feature, use it > right -- your changelog should have something relevant to say about the > bug, which is *not*, in this case, "New upstream version". If new upstream version corrects bug, isn't it right close the bug? I had an impression that changelog is meant for the changes in packaging. If I haven't changed package in any way which has something to do with bug, what can I say? Ok, I can start adding upstream changelog items to debian changelog too when it deals bugs, if that is wanted. and IF you had read the package changelog from /usr/share/doc/valknut/changelog.Debian.gz you should have noticed that, I have always "said something relevant" when it dealt packaging. Random attack is fun, isn't it? Regards, Pasi Savilaakso
Attachment:
pgp32ty6oiTS9.pgp
Description: PGP signature