Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> During some of the discussions lately on debian-devel another usage of >> the changelog has risen interest: >> >> * New upstream release (closes: #123, #124, #125) >> >> This has also raised some discussions. The thing is this: If #123, >> #124 and #125 aren't just "New upstream version available" bugreports >> then quite some people dislike this behavior. It shouldn't be too much >> hazzle for the maintainer to rewrite this as follows: > > I strongly disagree with your view. Please respond to my points > that have been raised previously rather than repeating this dogma.
It's pointless to go through this again. Instead, I'll offer a concrete example of the confusion this can create (the original submitter asks for clarification of how the bug was fixed): http://bugs.debian.org/188740 >> * New upstream release (closes: #123) which includes: >> - tmpfile race condition fix (closes: #124) >> - manual page included (closes: #125) >> >> The thing is: It helps the users and the person who reported the bug to >> see what bug exactly was closed without the need for them to dig in the >> BTS. This is no must but it is something your users would be greatful if >> you could do it. > > As I have said before, this is incomplete: only bugs that were reported > and identified are listed, and redundant: these changes should be in > the upstream changelog already. I don't see anything particularly helpful in the upstream changelog for the above example. -- Poems... always a sign of pretentious inner turmoil.
pgp49SrhX4bqQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
