On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:36:24 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:42:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:36:20 +1000, Herbert Xu
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> If it caused a Debian bug to be closed, that is a significant
>> >> change in status for the Debian package (it may not be for the
>> >> upstream software being packaged, but it is for my package).
>>
>> > What if the bug was reported after the new Debian package was
>> > uploaded? Why does it suddenly stop being a significant change?
>>
>> Good point. Shall we mandate that all bug closures be adequately
>> documented in the ChangeLog? I would be quite happy with that.
> Ai. Er, I hope you're not planning to encourage people to upload new
> versions of packages just to add bug numbers to the changelog?
> Because that would be most inefficient and wrong.
*Sigh*. Has common sense totally escaped the world? I never
indicated that one upload every other minute or whenever something is
added to the changelog.
I do think bug closures be documented in the ChangeLog (I
shall attempt to do so from now on for every real bug that is closed
for my packages). I shall not upload for every item in my changelog.
And note this does not involve time travel; my changelog would
document the bug was closed, and explain why: the fact that the
change was made in the past is OK.
manoj
--
I owe the public nothing. J.P. Morgan
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <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
