Bug#423171: possible-missing-colon-in-closes should not check ancient entires
Thijs Kinkhorst <thijs@debian.org> writes:
> On Thursday 10 May 2007 17:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> However, it's not correct that only the top-most changelog entries are
>> relevant.
> That's true in some cases, and indeed the .changes file might address
> that. But I wonder whether there will be many more "false positives",
> i.e. many-year-old changelog entries being flagged, than bugs that are
> missed in those cases. At least I would see flagging a non-current
> changelog entry that way as a false positive.
> What course of action do you suggest? Fix the changelog retroactively?
That's what I'd do, but you're right, there are a lot of hits that most
people will consider a false positive, and which at the most should be
info-level. But the problem in the current changelog entry should be a
warning.
I think the right course of action is to do what you suggest and change
the test to only check the most recent entry, with follow-on work to check
the *.changes file specifically. An argument could be made that
changelogs should be fixed retroactively so that automated analysis of the
changelog will correctly detect when past bugs were fixed, but I think
that's a very minor benefit and most people aren't going to be interested
in doing that.
I looked at this again and I think I see how to fix it, with a bit more
research. I'll try to get it changed in the next upload.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: