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

Re: Lack of update information

Chris Weyl wrote:
> It's hardly a "small additional cost", especially when looked at in
> aggregate; this would be an additional non-automateable step required
> for every update release that is of very questionable value/utility to
> the vast majority of our users.  I realize it would make your life
> easier, but is it worth an additional imposition on our already
> highly-regulated maintainers just to make your life easier?  I stand
> by my earlier assessment that the vast bulk of our users could care
> less, and those that do care would know how to find a package's
> changelog.  If this is important, we should find some way of
> automatically including a pointer to upstream's changelog in the
> update tool itself.

As one of those maintainers who always fill in useful update notes, I'll say
* Updates should include at least one sentence of rationale why they're
being pushed, and either a summary of the changes or the URL of such a
summary from upstream. (And in some cases the rationale and the summary of
changes are the same thing - if the update fixes some critical bug, that's
an obvious reason to push it.) IMHO updates with empty update details
should get rejected by Bodhi outright, and there should also be a policy
that "update to 1.2.3" is not sufficient.
* It takes almost no time to fill that in. You have to fill in a form for
the update anyway, typing a sentence or two and copying&pasting a URL into
it isn't going to hurt your fingers.
* I'm not a fan of selective updates at all (they tend not to work
properly), but as a user I still want to know *what* I'm getting in the
update. Each time I see an update with blank update notes or just "new
upstream version", I feel an urge to kick the maintainer in the rear.

You can see my updates for examples of how I'd expect update details to look
They're not always perfect (for example, I should have tried to figure out
what changed in the latest qt-copy patches included in that qt-4.4.3-6.fc10
update - I did give the rationale for pushing it though (fixing the upgrade
path from F9)), but if you can do as good as me, that'd already be
great. ;-) And it isn't that much work.

So in case it wasn't obvious I'm in favor of a policy for useful update

        Kevin Kofler

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