> I certainly prefer it if the changelog tells how the bug was fixed. This > documents the difference between: > > * New upstream release > - Removed the entire subsystem which contained this bug (Closes: #xxx) > > * New upstream release > - Made the "foo" option create its file with sane permissions (Closes: > #xxx)
I think there are two different kinds of bug-closing scenarios; and IMO, having the bug title and the submitter information would be benefitial, to get it edited to something useful. 1. A patch submitted through BTS which is directly applied : * Updated translation for ja.po From: Junichi Uekawa (closes: #xxxx) * Fix behavior of SIGSEGV handling From: Junichi Uekawa (closes: #xxxx) 2. A user report that did not contain a patch or anything that helped track down the problem, but at least the problem got fixed: * debian/rules: Removed unnecessary checks for environmental friendliness fixes "Package does not build from source on my dual-opteron machine" From: Junichi Uekawa (closes: #xxxx) * New upstream release implements "ACPI methods for controlling teapots" From: Junichi Uekawa (closes: #xxxx) For the second case, the maintainer needs to perform some manual editing to obtain a resonable changelog entry, as you suggest. Just a random thought. regards, junichi