On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 01:33:16PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > That has the drawback of not notifying the maintainer explicitly directly > after (or even before) the upload.
> But perhaps we need another mechanism to signal this. Consecutive uploads to > the same distribution should not cause previously present version entries to > disappear from the changelog. Maybe the archive can reject an upload that > misses a changelog entry that was previously present in the uploads to this > distribution. No, this is a terrible idea. If someone uploads a bad NMU of one of my packages, why should I have to reference it at all when superseding it? Neither the archive nor policy should impose such a requirement on me. > The NMU changelog entry should always be there, else the BTS will start to > display incorrect information. Then it's incumbent on the maintainer to correct the information. > Say the NMU'ed fix migrated to testing and the maintainer uploads another > fix to unstable, leaving out the changelog entry, testing is marked as > affected again which it isn't. That's not true. Testing will only be marked as affected when the maintainer upload reaches testing. Which AFAICS is perfectly appropriate. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
