Re: changelog bug-closing should not be used unless the code changes
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:26:43AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
[re: changelog bug closers]
> I think it is harder on the bug submitter to find out why the bug was
> closed. First you have to wade through the changelog entries to find
> the one relevant to the bug you submitted,
That's something we should fix in any case. I'd really like to see
the relevent changelog entry listed by itself near the top of the
email, or something like that. Whether or not we change anything
else, that is something that would be really nice (though not
necessarily easy) to change.
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net> writes:
> Chris> I might even go so far as to suggest that we should
> Chris> deprecate all other methods of closing bugs, and use the
> Chris> changelog entries as our *preferred* bug-closing mechanism.
> Sometimes you can close a bug straight away - eg. if the bug was filed
> in mistake, or a non-bug, etc. You don't always want to wait until the
> next package release just so you can close a bug.
Excellent point. So I guess we should keep both methods.
I think perhaps I'll switch to the camp that thinks that the changelog
should be for things that have actually changed. But I still think it
should be ok to mention things that changed in an *earlier* version if
you forgot to mention them at the time. In other words, you could add
closers for the already-been-fixed's and has-become-irrelevent's, but
not necessarily for the never-was-a-bug's. (Though I'm happy either
way with that last, as long as the changelog entries are descriptive.)
cheers
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@dsp.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: