Ross Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > > "The bug has been fixed" is everything I would need to know. I don't
> > > really care if it was a typo, a new library, a rebuild or some magic
> > > incantation with black dribbling candles, the bug has been fixed.
>
> On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 17:46, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > This approach surely don't raise the level of Debian.
> > Maybe *you* do not care of the details about the bug you reported. But
> > a Debian developer is entitled, normally, to provide information
> > according to what *users* can expect.
>
> On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 16:12, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > I do.
>
> If you want to see every change which was made to the source, read the
> upstream Changelog. If you want to see Debian packaging changes, read
> the Debian Changelog. It's simple really. :)
The debian changelog have the wonderful advantage to be sent by mail
when a bug is closed.
This person do not want to see "every change which was made to the
source" neither do her want to see "Debian packaging changes" but want
to see the change about the submitted bug.
To get that information in the mail sent, the only solution would be
to have it included in the debian changelog.
There's at least one other solution: what if, when a bug tagged
"upstream" was closed, the mail sent would include the upstream
ChangeLog (hopefully named ChangeLog in the top directory of the
package)?
Can someone familiar with the BTS code tell whether this change is
trivial or not?
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
