Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 01:37:05PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > There have even been some uploads with no other purpose than to
> > close some bugs, [...]
This makes a nice out-of-context quote, Colin!
> Hear, hear. The real reason why a bug was closed should always be listed.
> In detail if necessary, there's no byte limit on changelogs!
I fully agree. A changelog should be understandable without going to
the BTS, or (horrors!) having to diff the two versions.
> I've done differently rarely, recently with a new XMMS which closed 17 bugs
> and I had to finish the changelog within hours :)
Not going into much detail for upstream changes is ok, IMHO. There
should be an upstream changelog, after all.
> The upstream author gave me a list, and he is reliable.
Since he keeps an eye on our BTS, why not try to persuade him to put
the bug# into his changelog, when he thinks a bug is down? That's
probably not significantly more work, and would be optimal for Debian
users.
--
Robbe
signature.ng
