reopen 51230 reopen 61264 reopen 75800 reopen 77869 reopen 116802 reopen 141597 reopen 158743 reopen 170021 reopen 170059 reopen 193263 reopen 196254 reopen 197617 reopen 202779 reopen 81389 reopen 200434 reopen 196867 thanks
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Ean R. Schuessler wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Format: 1.7 > Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:18:37 -0500 > Source: kaffe > Binary: kaffe > Architecture: source i386 > Version: 1:1.1.1-1 > Distribution: unstable > Urgency: low > Maintainer: Ean R. Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Changed-By: Ean R. Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Description: > kaffe - A JVM to run Java bytecode > Closes: 51230 61264 75800 77869 81389 116802 141597 158743 167936 170021 > 170059 193263 196254 196867 197617 200434 202779 > Changes: > kaffe (1:1.1.1-1) unstable; urgency=low > . > * New upstream release closes many bugs. (Closes: #51230, #61264, > #75800, #77869, #116802, #141597, #158743, #170021, #170059, > #193263, #196254, #197617, #202779, #81389, #200434, #196867) > * /usr/lib/jni is now checked for JNI libraries. (Closes: #167936) This is not a proper changelog entry. A proper entry is as follows: * New upstream release. * no longer does foo when bar happens. Closes: #12345 * wrapper script rewritten to not use $$ in tempfile names. Closes: #12345 Please, everyone remember, a changelog documents *changes*. It's not a tool to close bugs automatically. The BTS sends these close messages to the submitter when the bug is closed. However, the email above has no reason as to why the bug was closed. It's not sufficient to just say a new upstream version was uploaded, which just happens to fix the bug. As a submitter, would you feel satisified that you had just gotten such a mail?
