[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Updates lacking descriptions



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:06:56PM -0700, Jesse W wrote:
>> What would be a good next step for me to take to help get 
descriptions  
>> added to these updates (and make sure this happens less often 
in the  
>> future) ?
> 
> It should fall back to taking the description from the 
changelog (in
> fact, I think it already does that right now).
> 
> Don't make package maintainers write 'New upstream release 
X.Y.Z'
> any more often than they have to ...
> 
> Rich.

Updates need to be more descriptive than this. Changelog entries 
and CVS commits can range from "split package" to "oops, forgot 
the patch" to "attempted before newRepo finished, bump release". 
These are useless as update texts. Maintainers should list 
things that have changed (features added, upstream bugs fixed, 
etc.). Linking the upstream changelog or release announcement is 
also good.

If this is enforced (and it may be good to add it to the 
critical-path suggestion), updates will be reduced since when 
there's little to write about, there's less justification for an 
update in the first place.

- --Ben
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqDOigACgkQiPi+MRHG3qTaagCglE3R1bqZ1xIj2JQyj5NrSdaW
ptAAnRyVItMJ2s2zVfyb6ZQTgGGWS9K4
=X0Go
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]