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

Re: Draft: simple update description guidelines



On 27.01.2009 20:59, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 20:49 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Whatever: I don't care much about this specific set of rules. It just seems to me a general trend that more and more rules and guidelines are put into place in Fedora-land; and more and more work is outsourced onto the packagers. Sure, some of the rules and the outsourcing is needed -- but I find this trend very alarming.
The alarming trend is the folks who won't do things, unless there is a
guideline for them.  I hate having an abundance of guidlines just like
you do, however almost all the recent guidelines have been done in
reaction to a lack of people following "best practices".

I know, I know.

Ergo we create
guidelines to /help/ people understand what those best practices are.

At least in this case I don't really understand why. Bodhi should simply enforce all of those rules/guidelines/best practices that were in the draf. Then the packager doesn't need to learn and remember those rules/guidelines/best practices.

Example with the first point from the draft:

* All Updates must refer to a upstream changelog or equivalent if one exists. Otherwise a brief description (a couple of sentence at most) justifying the need for an update must be provided by the maintainers pushing the update.

Add a text fiel in bodhi with that text above/beneath it; require that this text-filed is filled (maybe even do some basic sanity checks). Then this point gets automatically enforced and the packagers doesn't have to remember or look up what to do exactly. That's not only easier, but likely leads to better results and better quality of the data.

And even better: if that rule need to be adjusted that you can just update the text in bodhi and add a small highlight button that says "Updated recently" -- then most packagers will learn the new way automatically.

Cu
knurd

P.S.: Enough said. I'll try to stay away from this thread now.


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