Re: Proper way of closing *old* bugs
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:55:05PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Cyril Bouthors wrote:
> > On 3 Apr 2006, Adam Majer wrote:
> >> But the correct method of closing bugs is to send a message to
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org with the explanation of the fix and not in
> >> the changelog. Well, at least not in the way you seem to intend. The
> >> bugs closed in changelogs are suppose to be bugs closed due to the
> >> changes from the previous version to the current version. If you only
> >> mean to do,
> >> * Close bugs that were fixed VERY long time ago (closes:
> >> #123,#234,#345,#456,#567,#678,#789,....)
> >> then I don't think that is appropriate use of the changelog.
> > Closing bugs through the changelog is an officially supported method
> > and most DDs close bugs that way. Submitters receive a detailed
> > notification by email as soon as the package is uploaded.
> > I have no special mean to close bugs without informing the submitters
> > with a clear and detailed explanation as I always did with all my
> > packages.
I'm stunned that anyone still thinks that closing unrelated bugs in a
changelog is a good idea. email@example.com sends the detailed close message
to the submitter, and it doesn't make it look like the problem was fixed in
that version (which, of course, it wasn't).
> My question is, is it now appropriate to use the changelog as a crutch
> to close bugs that have nothing to do with the upload? I was always
> under impression that *old* bugs should be closed by sending an email to
> firstname.lastname@example.org saying that you are closing it because it was
> fixed some time ago, etc.. etc..
There's some debate over whether closing upstream bugs in the changelog is
OK, like so:
* New upstream version. (Closes: #NNNNN)
- The bar is now frobbed correctly. (Closes: #XXXXX)
- No longer trip over our shoelaces. (Closes: #YYYYY)
* Random package installation failures stopped. (Closes: #PPPP)
Some people think that it shouldn't be done ever, since it's not a change
that the maintainer explicitly made, but others think that it's OK when done
like that shown above, as it preserves all of the useful information.
But I can't think of *any* discussion which has ended with people claiming
that closing random bugs is OK in an upload. How would you even describe it
in the changelog?
* The bug has magically disappeared. (Closes: #NNN)
Uhhh... I doubt it.