On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:00:03 +0100, Kevin wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > It appears, most maintainers only have been ignoring the description > > fields or not filling them properly because of lack of documentation or > > awareness on how it is being used. > > Some of the replies in these threads don't quite suggest that. People > complain about the "bureaucracy" of being "forced" to write such stuff, > which pretty much shows they intentionally do not want to fill in those > fields and won't do it if they can get away without it. Bad summary. The bureaucracy is in taking away the freedom to fill in the free-form text field for "Details/Notes" about an update. You want to force maintainers to fill in more fields, and e.g. require them to hunt for a link to a changelog web page. As if the regular breakage of %SOURCE URLs had not shown that such URLs would not be invalidated regularly either. The thing I'm concerned about is the patronising and dominating behaviour of the people who want to unleash lots of new rules on maintainers. Thorsten has hit the nail on its head with his "best practices" comment in this thread. I also believe in "recommendations" instead of "rules" as well as in educating package maintainers, who queue questionable upgrades/updates. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
