Re: mdadm 2.4.1-1 ready for tests
martin f krafft <email@example.com> wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2006.05.17.2210 -0500]:
>> mdadm is a *critical* part of a system that uses linux software
>> raid. Anything that helps users understand all the important
>> changes an update will imply is always uselful.
> Of course, but if there weren't any important changes, doesn't it
> suffice that a bug is just fixed? As in: previously mdadm did that
> wrongly, and that's fixed. Why should a user care how it was fixed?
You don't even tell him *what* is fixed. Do you know by heart which
bugs you reported to package "foo", and if you get a notification that
bug #219876 was finally closed, you still know whether this was an
important issue or just a patch for a typo in the man page?
> I would expect a developer to know to turn to the upstream changelog
> for such information. Apart, the Debian changelog would be
> hopelessly long if I had to specify "what *exactly* caused a bug to
> be closed."
Since teTeX 3.0 was released really a long time after the 2.0.2, we also
had this problem. In this case, I closed the bugs with this remark:
| * Lots of bugs are closed by this upload - all bugs listed below have
| already been tagged fixed-upstream, and there should be an explanation
| in the bug logs at http://bugs.debian.org/<bugnumber>. In some cases
| the explanation is only a link to the LaTeX Project bug database, or
| it is in the comments of the mail sent to the control server, but it's
| always there.
| - For tetex-base: (closes: #221262, #261529, #272560, #119531,
| #267768, #195711, #181310, #206315, #230931, #258976, #145339,
| #190873, #214415, #255137, #181310, #219573, #229598, #286722)
| - For tetex-extra: (closes: #273246, #218178, #195109, #215925,
| #251143, #202472, #259696, #261736, #271463, #273247)
| - For tetex-doc: (closes: #160692, #223569, #153985)
> Yes, but see above. A bug that existed previously which is now fixed
> is in and of itself appropriate information: the problem now does
> not exist anymore.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)