Chris Weyl wrote: > It's hardly a "small additional cost", especially when looked at in > aggregate; this would be an additional non-automateable step required > for every update release that is of very questionable value/utility to > the vast majority of our users. I realize it would make your life > easier, but is it worth an additional imposition on our already > highly-regulated maintainers just to make your life easier? I stand > by my earlier assessment that the vast bulk of our users could care > less, and those that do care would know how to find a package's > changelog. If this is important, we should find some way of > automatically including a pointer to upstream's changelog in the > update tool itself. As one of those maintainers who always fill in useful update notes, I'll say that: * Updates should include at least one sentence of rationale why they're being pushed, and either a summary of the changes or the URL of such a summary from upstream. (And in some cases the rationale and the summary of changes are the same thing - if the update fixes some critical bug, that's an obvious reason to push it.) IMHO updates with empty update details should get rejected by Bodhi outright, and there should also be a policy that "update to 1.2.3" is not sufficient. * It takes almost no time to fill that in. You have to fill in a form for the update anyway, typing a sentence or two and copying&pasting a URL into it isn't going to hurt your fingers. * I'm not a fan of selective updates at all (they tend not to work properly), but as a user I still want to know *what* I'm getting in the update. Each time I see an update with blank update notes or just "new upstream version", I feel an urge to kick the maintainer in the rear. You can see my updates for examples of how I'd expect update details to look like: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/user/kkofler They're not always perfect (for example, I should have tried to figure out what changed in the latest qt-copy patches included in that qt-4.4.3-6.fc10 update - I did give the rationale for pushing it though (fixing the upgrade path from F9)), but if you can do as good as me, that'd already be great. ;-) And it isn't that much work. So in case it wasn't obvious I'm in favor of a policy for useful update details. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
