"Jared K. Smith" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Michael Catanzaro
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Perhaps the update policy should have a guideline on the minimum amount
>> of information required in this description. E.g. "update to latest
>> upstream version" might be a perfectly acceptable description for Fedora
>> given the fast pace of updates, but I don't think users should ever be
>> seeing "no update information available" and especially not "here is
>> where you give an explanation of your update." (And I've seen this one
>> multiple times within the past couple of weeks.)
> I tend to agree here. That being said, most of my package updates are
> something along the lines of "Update to upstream 2.5 release" -- would
> you find that descriptive enough, or still lacking in detail?
FWIW, I tend to say "update to upstream release XYZ" and give a URL for
the upstream release notes for that version. This approach requires an
upstream that's well enough organized to have such a webpage for every
version, of course; but for my packages this seems to work fine. The
upstream notes tend to have way more info than I could cram into an
update description, anyway.
regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
