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

Re: Updates lacking descriptions



On 08/13/2009 10:41 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Correct, such a step will add a significant bureaucratic burdons to
maintainers.

As maintainers hate bureaucrazy and prefer investing time on dealing
with technical issues (such as bug fixes), this will likely introduce a
further reduction of the quality of Fedora.

Further more, do you realise that any changelog is likely similarly
unreadable to most users?

Nonsense, it's not bureaucracy to expect an update to actually say what
changed and why you're pushing it.

No, as ususal, you are demonstrating your lack of competence and understanding:


Whether a changelog entry tells
- Update to upstream release 1.2.3

- Update due to http://ustreamurl/releasenote-1.2.3

- Upstream update:
.. <long verbose list of details>

is entirely irrelevant to both, you and to Aunt Tilly (she won't read them at all and even if she will not understand it).

Also, is naive to presume there always is a RH-BZ for each upgrade/update or that a bug upstream is fixes has ever been tripped over in Fedora.

With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time to fullfill your solely burecratic demands.

PS.: Stop cross-posting to newsgroups. I consider everybody who does
this to behave rude.

We're not cross-posting, we're replying to gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel
only (using our NNTP clients). What Gmane does with it is out of our
control. Any complaints about inadequacy of the Gmane gateway will have to
go to Gmane.
No. You simply are violating the netiquette ... i.e. you are hostile and rude to this lists users - Stop this habit.



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