Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Messages that close bugs are, however, the place for documenting why
> bugs are being closed and when those messages come from changelogs that
> means that the changelogs ought to be more explicit too.
IMHO the only reason why a bug should be closed is th
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:56:37AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/188740
> That's a documentation issue. debian/changelog is not the place for
> documenting random features.
Messages that close bugs are, however, the place for docum
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:19:14PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Are you proposing that we list important upstream changes regardless of
> whether they fix bugs or not?
>
> If so then this may be worth considering.
Hmm, I've always tried to do that, actually. And I appreciate it when
other develope
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Huh? The bug report was a feature request with a patch. The bug was
> closed with the description of "New Upstream Release". No indication
> was given whether the patch was integrated upstream, or implemented
> differently (with a different interface)
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It's pointless to go through this again. Instead, I'll offer a concrete
>> example of the confusion this can create (the original submitter asks
>> for clarification of how the bug was fixed):
>>
>> http://bu
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:53:39AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:34:23PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> >> 2. debian/changelog readers -- No change. They have lost a slight bit
> >> information that is irrelevant for the purpo
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 02:33:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:34:23PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > 2. debian/changelog readers -- No change. They have lost a slight bit
> > information that is irrelevant for the purpose of documenting Debian
> > changes.
>
> I am
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's pointless to go through this again. Instead, I'll offer a concrete
> example of the confusion this can create (the original submitter asks
> for clarification of how the bug was fixed):
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/188740
That's a documentation iss
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:34:23PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
>> 2. debian/changelog readers -- No change. They have lost a slight bit
>> information that is irrelevant for the purpose of documenting Debian
>> changes.
>
> I am one of these readers. I
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
>> It is in fact detrimental for a third group, people who are trying to
>> extract the version in which a given bug was fixed.
>
> Aah, but if the bug wasn't fixed due to a change in the package, then it is
> mi
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> During some of the discussions lately on debian-devel another usage of
>> the changelog has risen interest:
>>
>> * New upstream release (closes: #123, #124, #125)
>>
>> This has also raised some discussion
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:34:23PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> 2. debian/changelog readers -- No change. They have lost a slight bit
> information that is irrelevant for the purpose of documenting Debian
> changes.
I am one of these readers. I do this. A lot. Every day. And I am telling
you t
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
> It is in fact detrimental for a third group, people who are trying to
> extract the version in which a given bug was fixed.
Aah, but if the bug wasn't fixed due to a change in the package, then it is
misleading to say that the bug was somehow "fixed" in th
John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> in that case you can do this:
>
> * New upstream release
>
> and then use [EMAIL PROTECTED] to close the bugs, and everyone has a
> wonderful day.
Really? For the two groups of people affected by this change:
1. BTS readers -- No change. The
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> During some of the discussions lately on debian-devel another usage of
>> the changelog has risen interest:
>> * New upstream release (closes: #123, #124, #125)
>> This has also raised some discussions. The t
Herbert Xu wrote:
> Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * New upstream release (closes: #123) which includes:
> > - tmpfile race condition fix (closes: #124)
> > - manual page included (closes: #125)
> >
> > The thing is: It helps the users and the person who reported the bug to
>
Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> During some of the discussions lately on debian-devel another usage of
> the changelog has risen interest:
>
> * New upstream release (closes: #123, #124, #125)
>
> This has also raised some discussions. The thing is this: If #123,
> #124 and #125 ar
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:23:25PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Alright, this happened far too often lately to be ignored. This must
> stop, pretty please. The developers-reference[1] isn't written just for
> fun.
[snip]
/me stands up
_ _ _ _
18 matches
Mail list logo
