On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:42:14 -0500 Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:35:38 -0600, > Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So, that would be, BAD: > > > > - Changing User interface (moving menu items or buttons around) > > - Changing names of commands for command line. > > - Changing behavior of command line options (ie, --foo does > > something totally different). > > - Server packages that require admin intervention to keep working > > (database schema changes, config files change options that need > > to be modified to the new way), etc. > > > > Of course there may be cases where we have to do these things, but > > they should be exceptions, not something people expect. > > That seems to cover the bad pretty well. So if an upstream release > included something from above and bug fixes, if practical you should > backport the bug fixes. If that isn't practical, you need to decide > whether the behavior change or the bug is worse. Right. Also, added to that is: Are the bug fixes worth shipping to millions of people? ie, do they fix bugs that Fedora users would/have encountered. > Is it safe to say bug fixes combined with enhancements not covered > above would generally be OK? I don't know... I would like to hear more input on items that are bad (or good) for user experence. Perhaps I have missed some above? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
