Robert Scheck wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The general consensus seem to push for more of a best practises
document. So I am going with
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Markmc/Draft_package_update_guidelines
Once more: Why do we not explicitly ask the Bodhi submitter for details
using much more fields? Having more possibilities to fill data in makes it
easier to new packagers - they're remembered. Why do you want to solve a
thing with a Guideline rather enhancing Bodhi and making that software just
packager friendly?
We can do both. These guidelines cover more than just update
descriptions now and it is useful to document all these things in the
wiki. Then, I can also file a RFE against bodhi to add some more
information. However, note that existing comments in bodhi has been
ignored many times. If you want to file a RFE yourself, go ahead and
post the link when you are done.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
