On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:36:15PM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > A changelog entry which says only Closes: #<bug> is worthless; it is the > > same as leaving the changelog empty and closing the bug by hand. > > We are not speaking of a generic line with a "Closes: #1..."; we are > speaking of one of the most common chages: new upstream source close some > bugs. > > I don't realy see the point in bothering the maintainer in further > explanation of what happened: it is obvious and anyone has _all_ the > information he may need to find it for himself. It is _not_ obvious, and "closes: #..." gives no clue to someone reading the changelog what might have been changed. Internet access, knowledge of debbugs, etc. are not prerequisites for being able to make use of a changelog. > Should it ever happen to me, i would exactly think: I do spend my time > maintaing, fixing upgrading the software, keep in touch with the upstream, > forwarding report or any othern thing needed, so how do you now dare to > bother me because i did not write a verbose, futil and redundant changelog > entry? I do not understand how anyone can complain so much over something which takes so little effort, and yet adds value to the package for users, other developers and future maintainers. > How could you tell me that writing what you wanted, would have taken me > only few minutes? Are you teling me that what i do isn't enough? Your > comment is only a waste of time for me that read the mail and for you who > wrote it: you would surely have spent less time seeing it for yourself > then reopening that bugs. Clearly you have me confused with someone else. I didn't reopen any bugs. > Do you know what? I've more important things to do than spending my time > reading the last, never ending thread, about the most stupid issue in the > open source world. For instance, documenting your changes. -- - mdz
