On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:20:47PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 18:33:01 -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > The change is needed, since the BTS needs to know if the bugs are closed > > in that version or not. > > Could you propose an alternative wording for the following paragraph? > > <para> > > When a package has been NMUed, the maintainer should acknowledge it in > > the next upload. This makes clear that the changes were accepted in the > > maintainer's packaging, and that they aren't lost again. For this, you > > must first incorporate the changes into your package, as far as you want > > to keep them. Make sure to include the NMU's changelog entry (not just > > the line describing the changes) in your own changelog. This is > > important to allow the BTS version tracking to work. > > </para> > <para> > If the maintainer wishes to acknowledge an NMU, they should include its > changes and changelog entry in the next upload. > </para> > There's nothing wrong with not acknowledging an NMU. To acknowledge an NMU, include its changes and changelog entry in your next maintainer upload. If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the NMU changelog entry in your changelog, the bugs will remain closed in the BTS but will be listed as affecting your maintainer version of the package. This gives more information about why to include the changelog entry and the effects thereof, while remaining neutral on the question of whether this is the right way to do it. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
