Unhelpful update descriptions

[Dan Mashal]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2013 02:39 AM, Dan Mashal wrote:
>>
>> Right because you do that for every single update you push?
>
>
> For new upstream releases, I certainly try to.
>
>
>> Honestly, I'm done arguing my point. Other people in this thread have made
>> arguments for it, other people including yourself have made arguments
>> against it. This is turning into a "what should the default desktop be"
>> discussion. So I'm dropping off. This is a SHOULD not a MUST. If you have
>> packaged for a while, you'd get that. From your previous emails it doesn't
>> seem you are. Hopefully, this one makes my point more clearly. Dan
>
> I have been packaging long before Fedora even existed and
> maintain/co-maintain over a hundred RPM packages for Fedora but that's
> besides the point.

That's great. I looked at your bodhi pushes. Good for you.

> Providing links in the changelog is just good practice.
> Telling that users can just google isn't.
>
>
> Rahul
>

But it's not a requirement. And again, sometimes upstream does not
provide a changelog. Is this is in the Fedora packaging/updating
guidelines?

I'm not doubting your technical skills. I'm making a few points.

a) sometimes upstream doesn't provide a changelog
b) sometimes you have a LOT of packages to push out.
c) sometimes even you yourself don't know what to put in the notes.
d) sometimes there's really not much else to put at all.
e) different packagers have different upstreams to work with, which
goes back to point A.


The updates sit in updates-testing for 7+ days before being moved to
stable. At any which point anyone can leave negative karma if there is
an issue. Looking at your updates you got negative karma and pushed to
stable anyway.

Like I said, I'd rather not get in semantics. I'm just making a point.

Dan