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(a)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