On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 04:18:10PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think I do understand your position; I simply disagree. I feel that > > changes which close Debian bugs should be documented in debian/changelog > > whether or not they are Debian-specific changes, because: > > > > - The bug submitter should receive a reasonable explanation for the bug's > > closure in the -done message > > Well can you please give an operable definition of what a reasonable > explanation is?
A reasonable explanation includes enough information for: - the submitter to recognize that their bug was in fact fixed - a user to be able to read the changelog, with an idea of the bug in his head, and find where it was fixed. For example, a stable user reading an unstable changelog to see if a bug affecting him is fixed - a developer to be able to determine what version of the package he needs to depend on if he requires a certain fix which was requested through the BTS - the changelog to stand on its own, and be useful without digging through the BTS > I've read a number of closure messages on bugs of your packages, and > they really coveyed no more information than a message which simply > said that the bug is fixed in version x. Can you provide an example? The rootstrap example you gave certainly provided more information than "bug #xxxx was fixed"; it documented the addition of a feature which justified the closure of the bug. > > - Other Debian packages may be affected by the bug, requiring versioned > > dependencies > > This is irrelevant unless we start putting all closures in debian/changelog. > Otherwise you miss out on all bugs closed manually. > > Although this is a worthy goal, it should be addressed in the BTS and > not debian/changelog. My position on changelogs is completely unrelated to the BTS, because I think that the changelog should stand on its own, documenting all changes to the package which are considered relevant to Debian. For example, if I am aware of an upstream bug which I think may be troubling Debian users, and it is fixed in a new upstream release, I do not hesitate to note this fact in the changelog. It just happens that, to me, a Debian bug report is solid justification that information about the fix is relevant to Debian. This seems self-evident to me. > > - The fact that the bug was reported to the Debian BTS means that the bug > > (and hence the fix) is relevant to Debian users and deveopers > > I'm afraid I don't follow your logic on this point. There is a lot > of information that is relevant to Debian users and developers, that > is no reason for them to end up in debian/changelog. I certainly did not suggest that all information that is relevant to Debian users and developers should be in the changelog. I do feel strongly that changes in the package which are relevant to Debian users and developers, whether they happen to be in the debian/ directory or not, should be documented in debian/changelog. -- - mdz
