On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:29:56PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> what if the maintainer uploads a new upstream release which happens to fix
> >> bug #xxx, and then sends a message by hand to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> with the message "This bug is fixed in upstream version x.y.z".
> >
> > The submitter would still have little information on what happened.
> > It's not like anything bad would happen to the maintainer if they say
> > a bit less tersely what closed the bug.
>
> Let me make this a bit more concrete. Let's say that a user files a
> bug report saying that the kernel crashes when he does X, or that
> doing Y does not work as documented, or feature Z is missing from the
> package.
>
> What exactly is wrong with a message sent to the BTS by hand saying the
> "this is fixed in upstream version x.y.z"? Do we really expect our
> developpers to hunt down the technical details of each upstream bug
> fix before closing them?
No, but what exactly is wrong with explanations like "Kernel no longer
crashes on X since release x.y.z", "Y now does what's in the manual page",
"Z was added in the new release"? Do we really have to expect from our
developers to have such a lack of interest in what they're doing that they
cannot form a different meaningful sentence for each different bug, rather
than a generic response to the whole batch?
> Does the user really care?
Maintainers should do their part and leave the worrying about whether the
reporter cares to the reporter.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
