> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:20:47PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:

>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 18:33:01 -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

>

>>> The change is needed, since the BTS needs to know if the bugs are closed
>>> in that version or not.

>

>>> Could you propose an alternative wording for the following paragraph?
>>>
>>> When a package has been NMUed, the maintainer should acknowledge it in
>>> the next upload. This makes clear that the changes were accepted in the
>>> maintainer's packaging, and that they aren't lost again. For this, you
>>> must first incorporate the changes into your package, as far as you want
>>> to keep them. Make sure to include the NMU's changelog entry (not just
>>> the line describing the changes) in your own changelog. This is
>>> important to allow the BTS version tracking to work.
>>>

>

>>
>> If the maintainer wishes to acknowledge an NMU, they should include its
>> changes and changelog entry in the next upload.
>>

>

>> There's nothing wrong with not acknowledging an NMU.

>
> To acknowledge an NMU, include its changes and changelog entry in your next
> maintainer upload. If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the
> NMU changelog entry in your changelog, the bugs will remain closed in the
> BTS but will be listed as affecting your maintainer version of the package.
>
> This gives more information about why to include the changelog entry and the
> effects thereof, while remaining neutral on the question of whether this is
> the right way to do it.