----- Original Message ----- > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On 11/03/13 06:28 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> That's not readily apparent in the Updates Policy ... > > > Ah, you're right, I really should have checked it before posting > > (yet > > again). I was thinking that it discouraged *all* version updates, > > not > > just "major" ones. I personally would still be hesitant to update a > > package to a new upstream version if I didn't know what the heck > > was in > > it, but that is indeed apparently just a personal preference and > > not a > > policy :) > > I think there's no substitute for knowing your upstream --- and > therefore, not a whole lot of scope for a one-size-fits-all > distro-wide > policy. Yep, it was my main concern when these rules were set-up - every upstream is different. And you have to know your upstream and understand their release policies. So sometimes it ends up I just update to a new version even without Changelog (sometimes it's just forgotten) if I trust the upstream and I know even this update will be valuable. Even I feel a bit bad in such case ;-) Jaroslav > In my case, I work mostly with upstreams that are pretty conservative > about what they fix in minor releases, and I would think it > irresponsible *not* to push out their minor updates into released > Fedora branches. Other upstreams are a lot different though. > > I'm for leaving this to the package maintainer's discretion. Now, > there's no harm in having the guidelines try to explain how to > exercise > that discretion. Maybe the existing text could use refinement. It > doesn't seem that bad as it stands, though. > > regards, tom lane > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
