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
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
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 bet
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> A changelog entry which says only Closes: # 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
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
> chang
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
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 ent
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 m
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 t
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
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: c
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 e
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 a
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 offen
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.
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 peop
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 an
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, et
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
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
* 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
> m
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 _
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
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 aro
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)
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
* 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: # is worthless; it is the
> > > same as leaving the changelog empty and closing the bug by hand.
> >
> > We are not speaking of a
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: # is worthless; it is the
> > same as leaving the changelog empty and closing the bug by hand.
>
> We are
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> A changelog entry which says only Closes: # 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
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: li
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.
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 installa
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 fo
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
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
> >
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...
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
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
* 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 oth
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 t
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
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 ta
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 recei
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, yo
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
> > >
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
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 o
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 th
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
reopen 190302
thanks
Hi!
imagemagick (4:5.5.7.3-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream version.
* Upstream fix: closes: #194306, #129990, #161422, #186610
* This is not ImageMagick bug. : closes: #190302
-- Ryuichi Arafune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 23 May 2003 20:44:23 +0900
50 matches
Mail list logo
