Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:15:36AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: Do you know of any instance where spam has actually opened a bug report? Well, no, but cut me some slack; I was railing against stupidity. ;-) -- G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman pgpZvhwElg2Fm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: A changelog entry which says only Closes: #bug is worthless; it is the same as leaving the changelog empty and closing the bug by hand. Do you know how not to bother maintainers? [...] This is not a bother to maintainers, and no amount of enhancement to apt-listchanges relieves the maintainer's responsibility to document his changes. /me rises from the pew Amen, brother! AMEN! -- G. Branden Robinson|The best place to hide something is Debian GNU/Linux |in documentation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Ethan Benson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpZIfTi8SH0h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: 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. 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. Manoj often does that with his package uploads, and there's nothing wrong with that. I've been known to do the same with xtrs. I don't with XFree86 because my changelogs are already plenty large enough. :) I think bug reports are different in that a user has actually gone to the trouble of initiating contact with us, and it is just common courtesy to not dismiss legitimate concerns with a message like Closed. Whatever. Go dig up the reason for yourself. We should collaborate with the people who go to the trouble of identifying flaws in the software we distribute; we shouldn't dismiss them. (None of the above observations necessarily has anything to do with the sorts of bugs that shouldn't get closed by a changelog entry; i.e. non-bugs, a hysterical rant masquerading as a bug report, or spam to the BTS.) -- G. Branden Robinson| What influenced me to atheism was Debian GNU/Linux | reading the Bible cover to cover. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Twice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- J. Michael Straczynski pgpmJN2ZRV3j2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 02:33:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: (None of the above observations necessarily has anything to do with the sorts of bugs that shouldn't get closed by a changelog entry; i.e. non-bugs, a hysterical rant masquerading as a bug report, or spam to the BTS.) Do you know of any instance where spam has actually opened a bug report? I've never seen them include enough of a pseudo-header to make it through. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 05:15:48PM +0200, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:12:51AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:45:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: Yes, but there's still no bloody point in making the submitter hunt around for information that the maintainer already knows and for which it takes them full 10 seconds per bug to list (15 if they type very slowly). Submitter receive a mail from bts which include the message that opened the bug: what should he hunt for exactly? There are people other than submitter, maintainer and upstream ... Example: 1. detect bug 2. run reportbug 3. sees, other person was faster and reported bug 42. 4. wait for new version 5. read changlog 6. what the heck was bug 42, was it mine ? Or do you expect everbody to file duplicate bugs or subscribe to existing bugs ? Or better: 1. discover security vulnerability 2. was it fixed in the Debian package? 3. read changelog 4. see a bunch of completely worthless Closes: messages 5. throttle maintainer -- - mdz
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
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
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 05:21:05PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: Not only does the mail from bts _not_ include the message (like you were told by others already), also other people reading the changelog might be interested in it. I for my part am. Is it really asked for too much to write _what_ is fixed? I rather thought this must be common sense It is. Unfortunately, common sense is not always as common as we would like. -- - mdz
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
* Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-05-26 18:05:11 +0200]: Am Mon, 2003-05-26 um 17.15 schrieb Philipp Matthias Hahn: Or do you expect everbody to file duplicate bugs or subscribe to existing bugs ? AFAIK you can't subscribe to single bugs (at least I was told that a few month ago). But this is one thing I'd like to change at debcamp in Oslo... You are right. There is a whislist bugs filed againt debbugs about this, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=34071 which was filed for more than 4 years ago. It would be really nice if this feature was finally implemented. -- Mats Rynge ,''`.Got Woody? | JID (Jabber): [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :http://www.debian.org| Webpage: http://mats.rynge.net `. `' `-
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:42:29AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: Or better: 1. discover security vulnerability 2. was it fixed in the Debian package? 3. read changelog 4. see a bunch of completely worthless Closes: messages 5. throttle maintainer 1. defenestrate loser maintainers 2. ??? 3. PROFIT! -- SCNR.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:47:10AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: It is. Unfortunately, common sense is not always as common as we would like. Are you trying to say that i've no common sense? ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:46:02AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman 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_. It should be possible, for example, for me to read the changelog from a version of a package in unstable and from that to be able to judge whether it's worthwhile installing that version of the package on my stable system. This means I need to know what bugs have been fixed and when, and what scary new features have been added, and when. There's no way I'm going to be able to keep track of it by looking up every bug that's been fixed in that time in the BTS. Alternatively, I might want to work out why a package might depend on a specific version of your package -- for example when trying to backport the other package to stable. If you have a decent changelog I can quickly and easily judge whether the fixes that were introduced in the version mentioned in the dependency are necessary to me or not. If your changelog merely says New upstream version, closes: #123 #456, it's no help whatsoever, and I will (rightly) think that you suck. FFS, it's a *change*log -- so log the effing changes in it. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do not overtax your powers.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:47:15PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: If your changelog merely says New upstream version, closes: #123 #456, it's no help whatsoever, and I will (rightly) think that you suck. This is debian-devel: as soon as one declares he stops reading a thread, beasts came out and offends by praying on the tail of a discussion. You discriminate and offend people only by reading a list of changes, and i should be the one who suks (supposing i'm not right)? FFS, it's a *change*log -- so log the effing changes in it. The contraddiction of all this tread, is that: if i make a change to a package i've to list my change in the package changelog (Matt Zimmerman, no one ever objected this). If i build a new upstream, i've to list each change in the upstream changelog that let me declare a bug as closed; change that does not refer to the Debian package (but to the original upstream), and that i did not applied as part of my package working (because it was applied from the upstream). To demostrate how much this issue is stupid, i'll make any one here happy by including the entire upstream changelog in changelog.Debian.gz, next time i'll build a new upstream. have a nice day, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:14:28AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: To demostrate how much this issue is stupid, i'll make any one here happy by including the entire upstream changelog in changelog.Debian.gz, next time i'll build a new upstream. Didn't you just complain that people said you wouldn't have common sense? How odd. Michael -- blank i actually never planned to be in any other channel than #c++ blank everywhere else seemed like the loonie bin. or worst, the internet community. ;D
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : You discriminate and offend people only by reading a list of changes, and i should be the one who suks (supposing i'm not right)? He has the right to think that you sucks at filling changelogs, regarding how you fill changelogs. Anybody has the right to express a point of view on anybody else work, right? FFS, it's a *change*log -- so log the effing changes in it. The contraddiction of all this tread, is that: if i make a change to a package i've to list my change in the package changelog (Matt Zimmerman, no one ever objected this). If i build a new upstream, i've to list each change in the upstream changelog that let me declare a bug as closed; change that does not refer to the Debian package (but to the original upstream), and that i did not applied as part of my package working (because it was applied from the upstream). You said you have to list each change in the upstream changelog to know which bug can be declared as closed. And that's, as maintainer, your job, isn't it? But is it users job to do it too? To demostrate how much this issue is stupid, i'll make any one here happy by including the entire upstream changelog in changelog.Debian.gz, next time i'll build a new upstream. Is this mature? You still did not answer to the question: is it too much extra work you can afford to add in the changelog what permits you to declare a bug closed? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:10:36PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Anybody has the right to express a point of view on anybody else work, right? I'll try to keep in mind this gentlemen example of expressing a point of view on anybody else work next time, so i'll not misunderstend it with an offense. You said you have to list each change in the upstream changelog to know which bug can be declared as closed. And that's, as maintainer, your job, isn't it? But is it users job to do it too? I do not understand that: could you rephrase? Is this mature? It is as much mature as all the argument you people brought to this discussione, from my point of view. If you asked that question yourself, you're probably going to understand my point. You still did not answer to the question: is it too much extra work you can afford to add in the changelog what permits you to declare a bug closed? Speaking about entry like New upstream closes #..., my position is: This kind of request is futile, redundant and of no real need in _any_ case. Hunting maintainers down for a log entry of that kind is a waste of time either for the maintainer and for the hunters. All the arguments brought to this discussion to confute my observation are so childish and contraddictory, that the only way i have to demonstrate it is to act as previously stated. Have a nice day, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:11:11PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: Didn't you just complain that people said you wouldn't have common sense? How odd. Not that odd: if someone feels to be in the position of telling me that i've no common sense or express any other kind of colorful expression about my works, i thought i should have given him a real reason. The real odd think is that there are really a lot of people who think to be in the right position to point other maintainers as loosers or without common sense; and many are in charge of something in Debian. That make me wander... Have a nice day, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:14:28AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: The contraddiction of all this tread, is that: if i make a change to a package i've to list my change in the package changelog (Matt Zimmerman, no one ever objected this). If i build a new upstream, i've to list each change in the upstream changelog that let me declare a bug as closed; change that does not refer to the Debian package (but to the original upstream), and that i did not applied as part of my package working (because it was applied from the upstream). To demostrate how much this issue is stupid, i'll make any one here happy by including the entire upstream changelog in changelog.Debian.gz, next time i'll build a new upstream. Here's a suggestion for you. How about a simple changelog entry saying what the bug was and that it was closed by the new upstream code? Here's what I used in a recent xpdf upload, for example: xpdf (2.02-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release * Incorporated new Arabic language package 2003-feb-16 * Updated Hebrew language support to 2003-feb-16 * Upstream: fixed display problems in some PDFs (closes: #181076, #144047, #167827, #176856, #180829) * Upstream: fixed crash on find-next before find (closes: #172973) * Upstream: fixed color handling in buttons (closes: #171398) * Upstream: fixed crash if Ctrl-W pressed while file open (closes: #177698) -- Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:06:43 +1000 This is more informative than just * New upstream release (closes: #n, #m, #i, #j) and not really a lot of work. I started doing this after an earlier version of this same discussion... Comments on the above format welcome, btw. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : You said you have to list each change in the upstream changelog to know which bug can be declared as closed. And that's, as maintainer, your job, isn't it? But is it users job to do it too? I do not understand that: could you rephrase? I can. You wrote that you have to list each change in the upstream changelog to know which bug can be declared as closed. Right? You need to do that as the maintainer. Right? Do you think that users should list each change in the upstream changelog to know how the bug they submitted as been closed? You still did not answer to the question: is it too much extra work you can afford to add in the changelog what permits you to declare a bug closed? Speaking about entry like New upstream closes #..., my position is: This kind of request is futile, redundant and of no real need in _any_ case. Hunting maintainers down for a log entry of that kind is a waste of time either for the maintainer and for the hunters. All the arguments brought to this discussion to confute my observation are so childish and contraddictory, that the only way i have to demonstrate it is to act as previously stated. So the only way you have to demonstrate it is to act as a child? You do not think that providing these info in the changelog is useful. That your choice. But apparently many people disagree with you. You have an easy solution: follow the 4. of the Debian social contract ( http://www.debian.org/social_contract ). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:47:15PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: If your changelog merely says New upstream version, closes: #123 #456, it's no help whatsoever, and I will (rightly) think that you suck. This is debian-devel: as soon as one declares he stops reading a thread, beasts came out and offends by praying on the tail of a discussion. You discriminate and offend people only by reading a list of changes, and i should be the one who suks (supposing i'm not right)? FFS, it's a *change*log -- so log the effing changes in it. The contraddiction of all this tread, is that: if i make a change to a package i've to list my change in the package changelog (Matt Zimmerman, no one ever objected this). If i build a new upstream, i've to list each change in the upstream changelog that let me declare a bug as closed; The bug was most likely fixed upstream because you informed them about the bug. It's even possible you sent upstream a patch to fix the bug (I know I've done this several times). So, you either know for yourself or have been told by upstream how the bug was fixed. What is so fucking hard about describing this in the changelog? If you're not going to describe upstream fixes in the changelog, then don't close the bug in the changelog. The changelog is for describing changes, not listing meaningless numbers. Close it by hand with a note saying it's fixed in upstream version x.y.z. change that does not refer to the Debian package (but to the original upstream), and that i did not applied as part of my package working (because it was applied from the upstream). Uhh, your packages include the upstream source, and therefore the upstream source is part of your package working. To demostrate how much this issue is stupid, i'll make any one here happy by including the entire upstream changelog in changelog.Debian.gz, next time i'll build a new upstream. You're quickly entering Matt Ryan territory. -- Poems... always a sign of pretentious inner turmoil. pgp2qJtiYvakE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: I can. You wrote that you have to list each change in the upstream changelog to know which bug can be declared as closed. Right? That is what i wrote, but is not what i meant: it have a difference meaning if you take it out of the context, but my english is not so good to commit that i explained my self. I'll rephrase: -- You people told me that: - If i make a change to a package i've to list my changes in the package changelog (Matt Zimmerman, no one ever objected this). - If i build a new upstream, i've to list each change in the upstream changelog that let me declare a bug as closed; change that does not refer to the Debian package (but to the original upstream), and that i did not applied as part of my package working (because it was applied from the upstream). -- The second contradict the first, and does not follow what stated in policy about debian chagelog file (13.7 an 5.3 of policy). Do you think that users should list each change in the upstream changelog to know how the bug they submitted as been closed? If you mean read by the word list, of course i do. First came the upstream changelog, then the Debian one. So the only way you have to demonstrate it is to act as a child? So the only way to confute my observation is to bring childish arguments to the discussion? You have an easy solution: follow the 4. of the Debian social contract ( http://www.debian.org/social_contract ). I'm already doing it in many ways and, untill now, no one has conviced me that this would be a real improovement. have a nice day. -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 08:31:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: Uhh, your packages include the upstream source, and therefore the upstream source is part of your package working. So it is part of my work, and changes to my work should be included in changelog.Debian... To demostrate how much this issue is stupid, i'll make any one here happy by including the entire upstream changelog in changelog.Debian.gz, next time i'll build a new upstream. ... And since all upstream changes are included in upstream changelog, there is nothing wrong or childish in including the entire file in the changelog.Debian. have a nice day, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Brian Nelson writes: If you're not going to describe upstream fixes in the changelog, then don't close the bug in the changelog. The changelog is for describing changes, not listing meaningless numbers. If you want to have rigid, detailed rules for the content and structure of changelog entries make them policy and write them up in debian-policy. Anything less will just result in more pointless flamewars. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:43:22AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Brian Nelson writes: If you're not going to describe upstream fixes in the changelog, then don't close the bug in the changelog. The changelog is for describing changes, not listing meaningless numbers. If you want to have rigid, detailed rules for the content and structure of changelog entries make them policy and write them up in debian-policy. Anything less will just result in more pointless flamewars. There's no need for the rigidity of policy here, and the developer's reference already contains detailed information on this subject. -- - mdz
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You people told me that: - If i make a change to a package i've to list my changes in the package changelog (Matt Zimmerman, no one ever objected this). - If i build a new upstream, i've to list each change in the upstream changelog that let me declare a bug as closed; change that does not refer to the Debian package (but to the original upstream), and that i did not applied as part of my package working (because it was applied from the upstream). The second contradict the first, and does not follow what stated in policy about debian chagelog file (13.7 an 5.3 of policy). Do you think that users should list each change in the upstream changelog to know how the bug they submitted as been closed? If you mean read by the word list, of course i do. First came the upstream changelog, then the Debian one. Fine then. In that case it would be better for you _not_ to use the Debian changelog to close bugs by the new upstream version, but rather to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a proper explanation of what was done upstream. Right?
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:16:51AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: You are plainly misusing your changelog for closing #190302. This has *nothing* to do in the changelog, there are no *changes* in this upload that address this. Rather send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] explaining why you close them. I agree on this, but Btw., your line for Upstream fix: closes: is not very helpful for the bug submitters neither. They'd have to check their records to see what this bug really was. Please add informations on what was fixed so it can be seen offline, too. I really don't see the point in this. Submitters always have a copy of their report, so they have evrything they need. New upstream closes: #1, #2, #3 implyes an update of the upstream changelog file so it's worth of checking: listing changes already documented would be redundant and not so helpful. ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:16:51AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: You are plainly misusing your changelog for closing #190302. This has *nothing* to do in the changelog, there are no *changes* in this upload that address this. Rather send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] explaining why you close them. I agree on this, but Btw., your line for Upstream fix: closes: is not very helpful for the bug submitters neither. They'd have to check their records to see what this bug really was. Please add informations on what was fixed so it can be seen offline, too. I really don't see the point in this. Submitters always have a copy of their report, so they have evrything they need. New upstream closes: #1, #2, #3 implyes an update of the upstream changelog file so it's worth of checking: listing changes already documented would be redundant and not so helpful. Not necessarily. People that submitted these bugs will receive by mail a notice with the debian changelog, not the original changelog. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:17:23PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: I really don't see the point in this. Submitters always have a copy of their report, so they have evrything they need. New upstream closes: #1, #2, #3 implyes an update of the upstream changelog file so it's worth of checking: listing changes already documented would be redundant and not so helpful. Not necessarily. People that submitted these bugs will receive by mail a notice with the debian changelog, not the original changelog. Yes. And the very same mail will include the original mail that created the bugreport. That, to the very least, should give them a little explanation as to what is going on... -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 04:58:01AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:16:51AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: [...] Btw., your line for Upstream fix: closes: is not very helpful for the bug submitters neither. They'd have to check their records to see what this bug really was. Please add informations on what was fixed so it can be seen offline, too. I really don't see the point in this. Submitters always have a copy of their report, so they have evrything they need. [...] Which does not help everybody else at all, who have just the meaningless changelog and are using apt-listchanges to read it before installation. Putting just numbers in the changelog makes it list of links, that is completely useless if you are offline. cu andreas
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:56:27PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: I really don't see the point in this. Submitters always have a copy of their report, so they have evrything they need. New upstream closes: #1, #2, #3 implyes an update of the upstream changelog file so it's worth of checking: listing changes already documented would be redundant and not so helpful. Not necessarily. People that submitted these bugs will receive by mail a notice with the debian changelog, not the original changelog. Yes. And the very same mail will include the original mail that created the bugreport. That, to the very least, should give them a little explanation as to what is going on... Yes, but there's still no bloody point in making the submitter hunt around for information that the maintainer already knows and for which it takes them full 10 seconds per bug to list (15 if they type very slowly). -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:26:10PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: Which does not help everybody else at all, who have just the meaningless changelog and are using apt-listchanges to read it before installation. I don't see even this: are you warried about grave bugs? Use apt-listbugs. BTW, you can always grep the upstream changelog from the deb file using dpkg-extract. ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:45:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: Yes, but there's still no bloody point in making the submitter hunt around for information that the maintainer already knows and for which it takes them full 10 seconds per bug to list (15 if they type very slowly). Submitter receive a mail from bts which include the message that opened the bug: what should he hunt for exactly? ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:12:51AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:45:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: Yes, but there's still no bloody point in making the submitter hunt around for information that the maintainer already knows and for which it takes them full 10 seconds per bug to list (15 if they type very slowly). Submitter receive a mail from bts which include the message that opened the bug: what should he hunt for exactly? Perhaps the submitter might like to know what was changed to fix the bug? I don't know about you, but I usually actually go and confirm the fix rather than blindly accepting it. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:12:51AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: Yes, but there's still no bloody point in making the submitter hunt around for information that the maintainer already knows and for which it takes them full 10 seconds per bug to list (15 if they type very slowly). Submitter receive a mail from bts which include the message that opened the bug Uh, no, they don't. Let me find an example... ah, here's one: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=193974msg=8 -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Hi! On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:12:51AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:45:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: Yes, but there's still no bloody point in making the submitter hunt around for information that the maintainer already knows and for which it takes them full 10 seconds per bug to list (15 if they type very slowly). Submitter receive a mail from bts which include the message that opened the bug: what should he hunt for exactly? There are people other than submitter, maintainer and upstream ... Example: 1. detect bug 2. run reportbug 3. sees, other person was faster and reported bug 42. 4. wait for new version 5. read changlog 6. what the heck was bug 42, was it mine ? Or do you expect everbody to file duplicate bugs or subscribe to existing bugs ? BYtE Philipp -- Philipp Matthias Hahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG/PGP: 9A540E39 @ keyrings.debian.org
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
* Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-05-26 13:12]: Submitter receive a mail from bts which include the message that opened the bug: what should he hunt for exactly? Not only does the mail from bts _not_ include the message (like you were told by others already), also other people reading the changelog might be interested in it. I for my part am. Is it really asked for too much to write _what_ is fixed? I rather thought this must be common sense So long! Alfie -- ohne speicher, tastatur, mouse, pladde, monitor, also nur die Hardware... -- _DeadBull_ in #debian.de pgp1I18Nks3HM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:37:21PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: Perhaps the submitter might like to know what was changed to fix the bug? I don't know about you, but I usually actually go and confirm the fix rather than blindly accepting it. I don't know you, but i usually actually go and read the upstream changelog to know haw it was fixed: if i'm not satisfied (that may happen), i go trough reading the source if i like. I'm not blind, i can read. ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 05:15:48PM +0200, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote: Example: 1. detect bug 2. run reportbug 3. sees, other person was faster and reported bug 42. 4. wait for new version 5. read changlog 6. what the heck was bug 42, was it mine ? $ w3m http://bugs.debian.org/42 I'm not so bothered by writing 32 characters to know what was it. Off-line? Wait until on-line.. Do you know how not to bother maintainers? Ask to the apt-listchanges developers to add a feature to download bugs report for each bug closed in changelog. ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Hi, Am Mon, 2003-05-26 um 17.15 schrieb Philipp Matthias Hahn: Or do you expect everbody to file duplicate bugs or subscribe to existing bugs ? AFAIK you can't subscribe to single bugs (at least I was told that a few month ago). But this is one thing I'd like to change at debcamp in Oslo... Joachim -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 05:15:48PM +0200, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote: Example: 1. detect bug 2. run reportbug 3. sees, other person was faster and reported bug 42. 4. wait for new version 5. read changlog 6. what the heck was bug 42, was it mine ? $ w3m http://bugs.debian.org/42 I'm not so bothered by writing 32 characters to know what was it. Off-line? Wait until on-line.. Do you know how not to bother maintainers? Ask to the apt-listchanges developers to add a feature to download bugs report for each bug closed in changelog. Or maybe the maintainers can just spend 14 seconds to add a comment for each bug closed. Is that so complicated, so awful? This way, users can all be satisfied and you do not requires all user to spend 14 seconds each. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:26:10PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: Which does not help everybody else at all, who have just the meaningless changelog and are using apt-listchanges to read it before installation. I don't see even this: are you warried about grave bugs? Use apt-listbugs. BTW, you can always grep the upstream changelog from the deb file using dpkg-extract. No, I am not worried. I just want to know What was fixed in this release? without going online. I want debian/changelog to be a file with contents instead of links_to_fixed_bugreports_without_real_content.html It really is no effort to write * new upstream version: - escape and de-escape lines starting with a dot correctly (Closes: #178492) instead of * new upstream version. (Closes: #178492). cu andreas
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:26:10PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 04:58:01AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:16:51AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: [...] Btw., your line for Upstream fix: closes: is not very helpful for the bug submitters neither. They'd have to check their records to see what this bug really was. Please add informations on what was fixed so it can be seen offline, too. I really don't see the point in this. Submitters always have a copy of their report, so they have evrything they need. [...] Which does not help everybody else at all, who have just the meaningless changelog and are using apt-listchanges to read it before installation. Putting just numbers in the changelog makes it list of links, that is completely useless if you are offline. Also, keep in mind that the bug submitter is NOT the only person who cares about the bug! Other people need and want to know what changes were made from version to version--this is the purpose of the changelog, not just a convenient way to close bugs! -- - mdz
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:08:28AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:26:10PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: Which does not help everybody else at all, who have just the meaningless changelog and are using apt-listchanges to read it before installation. I don't see even this: are you warried about grave bugs? Use apt-listbugs. BTW, you can always grep the upstream changelog from the deb file using dpkg-extract. The purpose of a changelog is to _log_ the _changes_ which were made to a package, not just a bug-closing mechanism. -- - mdz
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:04:42AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 05:15:48PM +0200, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote: Example: 1. detect bug 2. run reportbug 3. sees, other person was faster and reported bug 42. 4. wait for new version 5. read changlog 6. what the heck was bug 42, was it mine ? $ w3m http://bugs.debian.org/42 I'm not so bothered by writing 32 characters to know what was it. Off-line? Wait until on-line.. The bug report and the bug fix are separate things, and looking at the bug report often does not tell you how it was fixed. Changelog entries help users to deduce which package introduced a new bug, follow the history of a package to find out when a change was introduced. Looking back over a year's worth of versions by downloading bug reports from the BTS is not useful. A changelog entry which says only Closes: #bug is worthless; it is the same as leaving the changelog empty and closing the bug by hand. Do you know how not to bother maintainers? Ask to the apt-listchanges developers to add a feature to download bugs report for each bug closed in changelog. This is not a bother to maintainers, and no amount of enhancement to apt-listchanges relieves the maintainer's responsibility to document his changes. -- - mdz
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I really don't see the point in this. Submitters always have a copy of their report, so they have evrything they need. New upstream closes: #1, #2, #3 implyes an update of the upstream changelog file so it's worth of checking: listing changes already documented would be redundant and not so helpful. Not all software has a detailed changelog. Most of the time, changelogs simply state add feature foo or various bugfixes. You cannot ask upstream authors to refer to debian bug numbers in their changelogs (one of mine does that, but he's neat), nor do describe all bugs they close. Moreover, this allow users to browse the BTS to seek for more information in case they see a description of the fix looking like a problem they encounter. Cheers, Benjamin -- .''`. ; ;' ; Debian GNU/Linux | Benjamin Drieu `. `'http://www.debian.org/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- pgpzmrLuNyKLy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: A changelog entry which says only Closes: #bug is worthless; it is the same as leaving the changelog empty and closing the bug by hand. We are not speaking of a generic line with a Closes: #1...; we are speaking of one of the most common chages: new upstream source close some bugs. I don't realy see the point in bothering the maintainer in further explanation of what happened: it is obvious and anyone has _all_ the information he may need to find it for himself. Should it ever happen to me, i would exactly think: I do spend my time maintaing, fixing upgrading the software, keep in touch with the upstream, forwarding report or any othern thing needed, so how do you now dare to bother me because i did not write a verbose, futil and redundant changelog entry? How could you tell me that writing what you wanted, would have taken me only few minutes? Are you teling me that what i do isn't enough? Your comment is only a waste of time for me that read the mail and for you who wrote it: you would surely have spent less time seeing it for yourself then reopening that bugs. This is not a bother to maintainers, and no amount of enhancement to apt-listchanges relieves the maintainer's responsibility to document his changes. I do think that complining because a maintainer worte New upstream closes: #1..., do not lead anywhere: it only bother the maintainer. Should i ever write such an entry, please don't waste your time and mine. Do you know what? I've more important things to do than spending my time reading the last, never ending thread, about the most stupid issue in the open source world. ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:36:15PM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: A changelog entry which says only Closes: #bug is worthless; it is the same as leaving the changelog empty and closing the bug by hand. We are not speaking of a generic line with a Closes: #1...; we are speaking of one of the most common chages: new upstream source close some bugs. I don't realy see the point in bothering the maintainer in further explanation of what happened: it is obvious and anyone has _all_ the information he may need to find it for himself. 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. Should it ever happen to me, i would exactly think: I do spend my time maintaing, fixing upgrading the software, keep in touch with the upstream, forwarding report or any othern thing needed, so how do you now dare to bother me because i did not write a verbose, futil and redundant changelog entry? I do not understand how anyone can complain so much over something which takes so little effort, and yet adds value to the package for users, other developers and future maintainers. How could you tell me that writing what you wanted, would have taken me only few minutes? Are you teling me that what i do isn't enough? Your comment is only a waste of time for me that read the mail and for you who wrote it: you would surely have spent less time seeing it for yourself then reopening that bugs. Clearly you have me confused with someone else. I didn't reopen any bugs. Do you know what? I've more important things to do than spending my time reading the last, never ending thread, about the most stupid issue in the open source world. For instance, documenting your changes. -- - mdz
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030526 21:41]: On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: A changelog entry which says only Closes: #bug is worthless; it is the same as leaving the changelog empty and closing the bug by hand. We are not speaking of a generic line with a Closes: #1...; we are speaking of one of the most common chages: new upstream source close some bugs. [...] 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. 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. In this situation there is little to do about the bug otherwise, than closing the bug with a message, that this was fixed upstream and this version was uploaded. And the mail generated when putting a (closed:# ...) after a changelog entry describes this with nice words and with much less chance to make additional errors. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
Em Mon, 26 May 2003 04:58:01 -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: Btw., your line for Upstream fix: closes: is not very helpful for the bug submitters neither. They'd have to check their records to see what this bug really was. Please add informations on what was fixed so it can be seen offline, too. I really don't see the point in this. Submitters always have a copy of their report, so they have evrything they need. New upstream closes: #1, #2, #3 implyes an update of the upstream changelog file so it's worth of checking: listing changes already documented would be redundant and not so helpful. It's very helpful to read nice comments on what is fixed when apt-listchanges sends me email with the debian changelogs... []s! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha http://people.debian.org/~kov Debian: http://www.debian.org * http://www.debian-br.org Dúvidas sobre o Debian? Visite o Rau-Tu: http://rautu.cipsga.org.br
Re: Bug#190302: Misusage of changelog!
I demand that Andreas Metzler may or may not have written... [snip] It really is no effort to write * new upstream version: - escape and de-escape lines starting with a dot correctly (Closes: #178492) No argument there from me. instead of * new upstream version. (Closes: #178492). No argument there either from me, so long as the bug being closed is about there being a new upstream version, and the uploaded package is that or a newer version. -- | Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington, | woody, sarge, | youmustbejoking | Northumberland | RISC OS | demon co uk | Toon Army | URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/progs.packages.html Your computer account is overdrawn. Please reauthorise.
