More unhelpful update descriptions

[Adam Williamson]

On 2013-07-03 2:28, Ian Malone wrote:

> Tooling issues aside (and it is undesireable that bugs should get
> marked fixed if they haven't been) I think this rule is wrong under a
> strict reading. If an update claims to fix two bugs and fixes neither
> then neither is the *only* change (highlighting is on the guidelines
> page), yet obviously the rationale for this rule does not apply in
> that case.

I was kinda hoping people would be able to draw the obvious 
interpretation there. That page (like just about everything I write...) 
is too long already, I really don't want to make it any longer.

> Pedantry aside, there is another case: where the update is meant to
> fix a bug and the maintainer has tried to do this by pulling in an
> upstream update that might not otherwise have been picked up (e.g. a
> git hash which has added a feature in the process of fixing the bug).
> The upstream update might be part of the change, but it was not the
> purpose of the change.

I'm not sure what conclusion you're drawing here?

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net