On 2013-07-04 6:36, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi,
I've run into a few updates that have been given negative karma because
they were missing update descriptions. While I understand that
maintainers should provide proper update messages, I hardly think an
update should be given negative karma for this. This has happened
before
and iirc, it was decided that Bodhi is not a policy enforcing tool and
an update should only be given karma if it does or doesn't fix the bugs
it claims to modify.
This is the result of a currently-active thread on devel@:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/184641.html
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/184687.html
Full disclosure: I actually endorsed -1 votes on updates with faulty
(empty, or placeholder) descriptions in that thread. Now I'm thinking
that might have been going a bit far, but do bear in mind these
descriptions are displayed in our update tools, under the assumption
they'll actually be sane. When they aren't, it does look pretty damn
unprofessional.
Can a sentence on this please be added to the feedback guidelines[1]
clarifying this?
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Update_feedback_guidelines
I'm happy to add a note to that with whatever the consensus of the
discussions turns out to be.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
