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

Re: Draft: simple update description guidelines

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, 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.

We've much rules and we're extending it all the time. We _maybe_ increase
thereby the quality, but to new packagers, that's a lot to read, understand
and to handle. I definately will expect, if we drive that road further on,
new packagers won't join us because of frustration how complicated we are.
And as we enforce some of our "Guidelines" as rules and policy...well.

Why don't we simply make Bodhi more packager friendly? Why do we really
need a guideline rather solving the problem at its cause: Bodhi. Can't we
request all the needed information more packager friendly? Why can't we ask
for bug reports, CVEs, upstream changelog, links, summary/fazit or similar
things explicitly? Currently, we have two or three input fields and that's
it. If we solve things with guidelines rather taking really care of it and
solving it on the right end, we're doing something very wrong.


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