On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adam Heath writes:
> > reopen 113236 !
> > thanks
> >
> > I see nothing in the changelog that says why this bug should be closed.
> >
> > Please, list the reasons why a bug should be closed in the changelog. Ie,
> > list what is being fixed. Adding a patch does not say what the bug was, nor
> > how it was fixed.
> >
> > I should not have to go to other sources to see the list of fixed
> > features/bugs in a changelog(ie, by going to the bts).
> >
> > Changes:
> > gcc-3.0 (1:3.0.2ds3-0pre011014) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> > * Update to CVS sources (011014). Frozen for upstream 3.0.2 release.
> > Closes: #109351, #114099, #114216, #105741 (allegro3938).
> > * debian/patches/fastjar.dpatch: New (Closes: #113236).
> > * Priorities fixed in the past (closes: #94404).
>
> This is a bug fixed in the upstream (HEAD 3.1) sources, which applies
> to 3.0.x as well. How do you want the changelog look like?
The entry in the changelog needs to state what the bug is, and what was
changed, to make it closable.
* Added debian/patches/fastjar.dpatch, which makes fastjar extract
filenames correctly(previously, some had incorrect names on extract).
Closes: #113236
With the above, I now know what the bug was, to see if it afects me, instead
of having to go to an alternate source(the bts). A changelog is supposed to
document changes. Don't abbreviate it, as it will only serve to aggravate
those who are reading it, when they have to pull information from many
disparate places.