> unlike other major distros, other updates have less helpful > descriptions: > > * "Update to latest upstream version" > * "No update information available" > * "Here is where you give an explanation of your update. Here is where > you give an explanation of your update." > > Perhaps the update policy should have a guideline on the minimum amount Or maybe the question should be: "should we be pushing this many updates for stable releases?" I was running Fedora 17 on a laptop till a couple weeks back and I kept getting nagged by PackageKit every other evening. Atleast twice a week. A meaningful update message makes sense if we want each user to read them through. And if you want each user to do so, then you better write a %changelog that is much more understandable than the upstream ChangeLog because every random user will not be able to make sense of the jargon. I am sure most developers won't be able to understand, unless they are initimately familiar with the project. So you will have to spend significant time writing the text. I would suggest that we keep updates to a minimum, that we audit them so that random version bumps don't get pushed to stable releases, and we ship them in time based batches (eg., monthly or bi-monthly, etc.). Once we do that we will be able to ensure that they are of sufficient quality. At that point one will not want to read the %changelog for each package to satisfy herself of the need to update it. You get batches of well tested updates at specified intervals of time, and you just apply them without getting annoyed or being suspicious. I think it would be a much better use of our time to audit and test updates than writing %changelogs that can be understood by laymen. Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar
Attachment:
pgp3JKGZnAbqM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel