Unhelpful update descriptions

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
> Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> writes:
> > On 11/03/13 06:28 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> That's not readily apparent in the Updates Policy ...
> 
> > Ah, you're right, I really should have checked it before posting
> > (yet
> > again). I was thinking that it discouraged *all* version updates,
> > not
> > just "major" ones. I personally would still be hesitant to update a
> > package to a new upstream version if I didn't know what the heck
> > was in
> > it, but that is indeed apparently just a personal preference and
> > not a
> > policy :)
> 
> I think there's no substitute for knowing your upstream --- and
> therefore, not a whole lot of scope for a one-size-fits-all
> distro-wide
> policy.

Yep, it was my main concern when these rules were set-up - every upstream
is different. And you have to know your upstream and understand their
release policies. So sometimes it ends up I just update to a new version
even without Changelog (sometimes it's just forgotten) if I trust the
upstream and I know even this update will be valuable. Even I feel a 
bit bad in such case ;-)

Jaroslav

> In my case, I work mostly with upstreams that are pretty conservative
> about what they fix in minor releases, and I would think it
> irresponsible *not* to push out their minor updates into released
> Fedora branches.  Other upstreams are a lot different though.
> 
> I'm for leaving this to the package maintainer's discretion.  Now,
> there's no harm in having the guidelines try to explain how to
> exercise
> that discretion.  Maybe the existing text could use refinement.  It
> doesn't seem that bad as it stands, though.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel