On 21/08/08 at 02:09 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:20:47PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 18:33:01 -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > The change is needed, since the BTS needs to know if the bugs are closed > > > in that version or not. > > > > Could you propose an alternative wording for the following paragraph? > > > <para> > > > When a package has been NMUed, the maintainer should acknowledge it in > > > the next upload. This makes clear that the changes were accepted in the > > > maintainer's packaging, and that they aren't lost again. For this, you > > > must first incorporate the changes into your package, as far as you want > > > to keep them. Make sure to include the NMU's changelog entry (not just > > > the line describing the changes) in your own changelog. This is > > > important to allow the BTS version tracking to work. > > > </para> > > > <para> > > If the maintainer wishes to acknowledge an NMU, they should include its > > changes and changelog entry in the next upload. > > </para> > > > There's nothing wrong with not acknowledging an NMU. > > To acknowledge an NMU, include its changes and changelog entry in your next > maintainer upload. If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the > NMU changelog entry in your changelog, the bugs will remain closed in the > BTS but will be listed as affecting your maintainer version of the package. > > This gives more information about why to include the changelog entry and the > effects thereof, while remaining neutral on the question of whether this is > the right way to do it.
Sounds good. Applied to my local copy. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
