On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:05:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > A proper entry is as follows: > > * New upstream release. > * no longer does foo when bar happens. Closes: #12345 > * wrapper script rewritten to not use $$ in tempfile names. Closes: #12345 > > Please, everyone remember, a changelog documents *changes*. It's not a tool > to close bugs automatically.
It documents which revision closed bug #12345. That's useful information for a changelog. It's certainly not worse than saying only "new upstream revision" and closing the bugs manually. > The BTS sends these close messages to the submitter when the bug is closed. > However, the email above has no reason as to why the bug was closed. It's not > sufficient to just say a new upstream version was uploaded, which just happens > to fix the bug. As a submitter, would you feel satisified that you had just > gotten such a mail? Absolutely! I reported a bug, and the mail says that the bug I reported has been fixed. That's all I need to know. If I report "segmentation fault in ls", I--as a user of ls, not a developer--couldn't care less about why it was segfaulting or how the bug was fixed; I only care that it's been fixed. If a developer wants to spend their limited time researching how the bug was fixed and summarizing it in a changelog, great, but it's certainly not something I'd expect everyone to do. (As a user, I'd certainly be rather annoyed at receiving duplicate close reports because someone reopened the bug for frivelous reasons, however. I get enough junk mail already.) -- Glenn Maynard
