On Wed, 17 May 2006, martin f krafft wrote: > Mh. I don't want to (re)start a flamewar, but my take is that > changelog.Debian documents changes I've made, and the upstream > changelog documents the changes they've made. I acknowledge these > changes by closing the bugs, and if you care how it got fixed, you > look at the upstream changelog. I just don't think there's a big > point in duplicating information in the Debian changelog.
Please reconsider. mdadm is a *critical* part of a system that uses linux software raid. Anything that helps users understand all the important changes an update will imply is always uselful. Anything that helps a developer easily track down what *exacly* caused a bug to be closed can be very useful, too. The debian changelog is the only source of such information which is well defined, consistent, and available from tools like aptitude, apt-listchanges and other Debian infrastructure. Duplicating the entire upstream changelog there can be quite silly (if the upstream changelog is very detailed), but adding the main points there is *very* appreciated by many of us. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
