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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
