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

Re: Draft: simple update description guidelines



Le mardi 27 janvier 2009 à 19:43 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:48:45PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > * 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.
> 
> I'm happy this applies only to released versions of Fedora[1].  But I
> think this should also exclude 'newpackage' updates explicitly (ie.
> where a new package is added to a released version of Fedora).

Since some people insist a simple package renaming creates a new
package, that must be audited to death, when we still have not finished
doing fedora core merge reviews, and accept to continue carry years of
legacy cruft in some historic Red Hat packages, I vigorously object to
this proposal.

Instead of requiring new levels of over-pure whiteness of new packages,
please focus on how the existing morass can be improved.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée


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