John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > in that case you can do this: > > * New upstream release > > and then use [EMAIL PROTECTED] to close the bugs, and everyone has a > wonderful day.
Really? For the two groups of people affected by this change: 1. BTS readers -- No change. The information they've received is identical, i.e., that the bug has been fixed by a new upstream release. 2. debian/changelog readers -- No change. They have lost a slight bit information that is irrelevant for the purpose of documenting Debian changes. It is in fact detrimental for a third group, people who are trying to extract the version in which a given bug was fixed. So who is having a wonderful day because of this? > you say ``should be in the upstream changelog already.'' what about > those cases when they are not listed? If you want to be pedantic, mostly redundant then. I don't know about your upstream, but as far as the Linux kernel goes, most changes have reasonable log messages in the BitKeeper system. -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
