On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:43:16 -0400 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:32:17AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > > > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Much better, but one more nit: > > > > > > > + Includes fix from last NMU (Closes: #104974) > > > > > > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-debian-changelog > > > > Do you mean I should write something like > > > > > It is an old tradition to acknowledge bugs fixed in non-maintainer > > > uploads in the first changelog entry of the proper maintainer > > > upload, for instance, in a changelog entry like this: > > > > > > * Maintainer upload, closes: #42345, #44484, #42444. > > > > I think you meant something more like this: > > > > ddj.c: Doesn't assign va_start to lvalue (Closes: #104974) > > > > Which is in the new package again at the above url. > > Yes, I was referring to the second paragraph in section 6.3.1 of the > developer's reference: > > > Focus on what was changed---who, how and when are usually less > > important. Having said that, remember to politely attribute people > > who have provided notable help in making the package (e.g., those > > who have sent in patches). > > In this case, it is important to note what actually changed in the > package. Personally, I dislike the "maintainer upload, closes:" > convention, and prefer to re-summarize the changes so that it is clear > which bugs are being acknowledged. Remember that, when you use > Closes:, the submitter of the bug only gets a copy of your most recent > changelog entry, so they won't see what the NMUer wrote. Right, I also prefer useful msgs as a bugsubmitter. > Also, the fix was not in the last NMU, but in the NMU before that > (there were two consecutive NMUs). Yep, that was the first 'bug in the changelog you noted, I started working on an older changelog > Anyway, the latest iteration seems fine; I'll upload this a bit later. Thnx, Tim
