REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:42:14 -0500
Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:35:38 -0600,
>   Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> > So, that would be, BAD:
> > 
> > - Changing User interface (moving menu items or buttons around)
> > - Changing names of commands for command line. 
> > - Changing behavior of command line options (ie, --foo does
> > something totally different). 
> > - Server packages that require admin intervention to keep working
> >   (database schema changes, config files change options that need
> > to be modified to the new way), etc. 
> > 
> > Of course there may be cases where we have to do these things, but
> > they should be exceptions, not something people expect. 
> 
> That seems to cover the bad pretty well. So if an upstream release
> included something from above and bug fixes, if practical you should
> backport the bug fixes. If that isn't practical, you need to decide
> whether the behavior change or the bug is worse.

Right. Also, added to that is: Are the bug fixes worth shipping to
millions of people? ie, do they fix bugs that Fedora users would/have
encountered. 

> Is it safe to say bug fixes combined with enhancements not covered
> above would generally be OK?

I don't know... I would like to hear more input on items that are bad
(or good) for user experence. Perhaps I have missed some above?

kevin
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100922/1b99791e/attachment.bin