Re: [RFS]: digitaldj
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:32:17AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Much better, but one more nit:
> > > + Includes fix from last NMU (Closes: #104974)
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-debian-changelog
> Do you mean I should write something like
> > It is an old tradition to acknowledge bugs fixed in non-maintainer
> > uploads in the first changelog entry of the proper maintainer upload,
> > for instance, in a changelog entry like this:
> > * Maintainer upload, closes: #42345, #44484, #42444.
> I think you meant something more like this:
> ddj.c: Doesn't assign va_start to lvalue (Closes: #104974)
> Which is in the new package again at the above url.
Yes, I was referring to the second paragraph in section 6.3.1 of the
> Focus on what was changed---who, how and when are usually less important.
> Having said that, remember to politely attribute people who have provided
> notable help in making the package (e.g., those who have sent in patches).
In this case, it is important to note what actually changed in the package.
Personally, I dislike the "maintainer upload, closes:" convention, and
prefer to re-summarize the changes so that it is clear which bugs are being
acknowledged. Remember that, when you use Closes:, the submitter of the bug
only gets a copy of your most recent changelog entry, so they won't see what
the NMUer wrote.
Also, the fix was not in the last NMU, but in the NMU before that (there
were two consecutive NMUs).
Anyway, the latest iteration seems fine; I'll upload this a bit later.