On 11/03/13 09:45 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
----- Original Message -----
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?
From the time, Kevin sent me a message in a style of "One more such
update description and I'll will come to Brno to k*ll you" I'm
trying to provide better description. But it really depends on
quality of upstream Changelogs. Sometimes it's just really hard
to write more than "update to latest upstream version x.y" :(
At the very least, if you're doing an update for a stable release (so
okay, Branched is an exception here), you should have a clear reason for
doing it. You're not supposed to bump to the latest upstream release
just Because It's There: that's against the update policy. AIUI, in the
theoretical situation you describe, the maintainer should not be issuing
an update at all.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
