[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 21:25 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> 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.

(if this section is not added). Though if it needs to be added, that
means yet another level of complexity to manage

> 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]