Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> The is another option, which is to grow some refinement in our update
> collection structuring. We keep updates-testing and updates exactly
> as they are but introduce a self-consistent culled-updates collection
> with a higher reporting mandate that is a subset of what flows through
> updates-released. People step forward to do the work to meet the
> higher reporting mandate of the culled collection so that each culled
> update has adequate information in its bodhi record to meet the higher
> standard. That would keep current package maintainers are not
> burdened by the additional requirement, but would create a space for
> people to prove that the additional information has a cost to benefit
> ratio that makes it worth doing as a best practise.
I don't think that makes sense. We should just require proper update details
for the existing updates. It takes almost no time to fill them in.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
