On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:34:58PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > It's not about summarizing how the bug was fixed. It's about summarizing the > bug *itself* in the changelog. > > The description of the bug is already available(as the title of the bug > report). At the very least this should be placed in the debian changelog.
How is this abusive? The maintainer is putting useful information in the changelog (the release a given bug was fixed), and closing the bug in the process. Not including a description of the bug seems no worse than not listing closed bugs in the changelog at all, and closing them all separately later on; I'm sure many maintainers without time to revisit lots of bugs after each upstream release do this. A script to convert eg. * New upstream release .* (Closes: #1, #2, #3) to * New upstream release \1 * fixed "BTS summary line of #1" Closes: #1 * fixed "BTS summary line of #2" Closes: #2 * fixed "BTS summary line of #3" Closes: #3 in changelogs would probably go a lot further to correcting this very minor issue than reopening dozens of bug reports that belong closed, annoying users with BTS garbage, and repeating the same thread on debian-devel over and over. -- Glenn Maynard
