Re: changelog bug-closing should not be used unless the code changes
>>"Nicolás" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <email@example.com> writes:
Ian> I don't think that using the changelog bug-closing mechanism is
Ian> appropriate for when a bug is closed with no change to the code.
>> Would you care to explain this statement? If closing the bug
>> is indeed propoer, why shouldn't the changelog mechanism be used?
>> Indeed, I would think the changelog mechanism should be preferred,
>> since there is a permanent record of all such actions in the
>> changelog, then.
Nicolás> Because this is a changelog. A log of changes between
Nicolás> versions. Changelogs are meant mainly for users, so they can
Nicolás> easily check what have changed between two versions of the
Nicolás> package. Right now, this overload of the changelog function
Nicolás> makes them confusing.
This all comes down to what is in the changelog, really. Most
of mine are less than 8 entries, and it is not onerous to locate the
two or three lines in 12 or so that indicate why the bug was closed.
Arguably, it is also nice to know what other changes went into
a release (very often my work, and the bugs fixed, are clustered, and
the apparently unrelated information about the other bug fixes tends
to provide relvant background).
Nicolás> Another bad habit I've seen recently are entries that
Nicolás> require the user to go to the BTS to know what have
Nicolás> happened. eg:
Nicolás> * Finally managed to fix this bug (closes:Bug#66666).
I dislike those as well.
No animal should ever jump on the dining room furniture unless
absolutely certain he can hold his own in conversation. Fran Lebowitz
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C