Re: Proper way of closing *old* bugs
It seems to me that, in this case (and correct me if I'm wrong), the
package hasn't been updated from upstream for a long time, and so the
difference between the old version and the new version fixes the stack
of old bugs (( even though it wasn't _this specific version_ where the
bug was fixed )).
Now, if the bug has been (contrary to my reading) fixed for a long time,
and just not reported as fixed, then I can see it being misleading to
fix the bug via the changelog.
If it's a case of being lazy, then you can just something like:
while read bug notes ; do
( echo bug $bug was fixed a long time ago ; echo " $notes" | fmt ) |
done << EOF
42 A mouse did it
31415 Used a circular log
42923 Mikie did it.
Matthew Palmer wrote:
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
email@example.com 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:
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
I'm stunned that anyone still thinks that closing unrelated bugs in a
changelog is a good idea. firstname.lastname@example.org 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
email@example.com 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.
Stephen Samuel +1(778)861-7641 firstname.lastname@example.org
Powerful committed communication. Transformation touching
the jewel within each person and bringing it to light.