Re: [RFS]: digitaldj
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:43:16 -0400
Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:32:17AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> developer's reference:
> > 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.
Right, I also prefer useful msgs as a bugsubmitter.
> Also, the fix was not in the last NMU, but in the NMU before that
> (there were two consecutive NMUs).
Yep, that was the first 'bug in the changelog you noted, I started
working on an older changelog
> Anyway, the latest iteration seems fine; I'll upload this a bit later.