Frank Murphy wrote:
> It's also called "political licence"
No, it's not really the same thing. ;-)
I didn't try to distort your viewpoint, just highlight the contradictions.
But this time I'm replying in order. :-)
> If you mean these points from "Mail Lists" then yes.
Yes, that's what I mean.
> The why\how is it a bug?
> Who decided?
> Handshake?
Upstream? Whoever reported it there?
> If it's a bug and you (generic) know about it,
> please refrence it in bugzilla,
> even if only providing a link to upstream Bugzilla\Similar
So I should file bugs against my own packages just to link to an already
existing and already fixed upstream bug report? What kind of useless
bureaucracy would THAT be? :-/
> Thats what Bugzilla is for.
> If people so not report bugs,
> they should be educated to do so.
> Whether user\dev\packager\ etc..
> No one is a mind reader.
It doesn't take a mind reader to realize that an upstream BUGFIX release,
well, FIXES BUGS! ;-)
> Semantics.
> You want embellishment go Rawhide.
> otherwise stick with Security\Bugs as updates.
I don't think that's a good plan. Running Rawhide is NOT something an
average user should have to do. A voluntary tester, sure, but not a user who
just wants to use the system and needs the latest kernel, e.g. for his
hardware to work.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
