Unhelpful update descriptions

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Mar 12 01:15:49 UTC 2013


On 11/03/13 09:45 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Michael Catanzaro
>> <mike.catanzaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps the update policy should have a guideline on the minimum
>>> amount
>>> of information required in this description. E.g. "update to latest
>>> upstream version" might be a perfectly acceptable description for
>>> Fedora
>>> given the fast pace of updates, but I don't think users should ever
>>> be
>>> seeing "no update information available" and especially not "here
>>> is
>>> where you give an explanation of your update." (And I've seen this
>>> one
>>> multiple times within the past couple of weeks.)
>>
>> I tend to agree here.  That being said, most of my package updates
>> are
>> something along the lines of "Update to upstream 2.5 release" --
>> would
>> you find that descriptive enough, or still lacking in detail?
>
>  From the time, Kevin sent me a message in a style of "One more such
> update description and I'll will come to Brno to k*ll you" I'm
> trying to provide better description. But it really depends on
> quality of upstream Changelogs. Sometimes it's just really hard
> to write more than "update to latest upstream version x.y" :(

At the very least, if you're doing an update for a stable release (so 
okay, Branched is an exception here), you should have a clear reason for 
doing it. You're not supposed to bump to the latest upstream release 
just Because It's There: that's against the update policy. AIUI, in the 
theoretical situation you describe, the maintainer should not be issuing 
an update at all.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net


More information about the devel mailing list