[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mdadm 2.4.1-1 ready for tests

martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> wrote:

> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.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.

Which problem?

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Reply to: