Re: Proper way of closing *old* bugs
Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes:
> 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.
I think this case is reasonable. The specific upload of the new
upstream fixes the named bugs. The version tracking of the BTS will
correctly show those bugs as open/closed depending on the version
queried and apt-listchanges will inform users correctly about bug fixes
too.
Descriptive entries detailing what the bug was that upstream fixed
(bar is now frobbed correctly) are especialy helpfull. Just saing "New
upstream" and then list a ton of bugs can be uninformative but with
details per bug number I find that perfectly alright.
> 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.
That is nasty. :)
> - Matt
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: