"Jared K. Smith" <jsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Michael Catanzaro > <mike.catanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Perhaps the update policy should have a guideline on the minimum amount >> of information required in this description. E.g. "update to latest >> upstream version" might be a perfectly acceptable description for Fedora >> given the fast pace of updates, but I don't think users should ever be >> seeing "no update information available" and especially not "here is >> where you give an explanation of your update." (And I've seen this one >> multiple times within the past couple of weeks.) > I tend to agree here. That being said, most of my package updates are > something along the lines of "Update to upstream 2.5 release" -- would > you find that descriptive enough, or still lacking in detail? FWIW, I tend to say "update to upstream release XYZ" and give a URL for the upstream release notes for that version. This approach requires an upstream that's well enough organized to have such a webpage for every version, of course; but for my packages this seems to work fine. The upstream notes tend to have way more info than I could cram into an update description, anyway. regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
