On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030526 21:41]: > > It is _not_ obvious, and "closes: #..." gives no clue to someone reading > > the changelog what might have been changed. Internet access, knowledge > > of debbugs, etc. are not prerequisites for being able to make use of a > > changelog. > > Then why do you limit your critic to the bug closed. Which bugs are closed > are often the least interisting item of a new version.
Bug fixes are one of the most interesting things in a changelog. This is not the daily news, it is a record of what changed, and _when_. > While I agree a "New version" is quite a short changelog entry, and most > likely would be better if describing the new version, upstream changes > have quite often much things changed. And I'd rather prefer more important > changes described there, than that one specific bug was fixed. If there was a bug reported in the Debian BTS, then obviously it is relevant to Debian users and should be recorded in the Debian changelog. Likewise for any critical bugfix, such as a security fix or long-standing bug which happens not to be in the BTS. The type of changelog entry which only closes a bug is just the most common example of documenting the wrong things. -- - mdz
