On 2013-06-29 7:08, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 07:44:22PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
We need written policy on update descriptions, since despite the last
discussion on this list [1], poor update descriptions continue to
blemish the otherwise-professional image of the distro. A starting
point
suggestion: "Every update should have at least a one sentence
description." If the update is not worth writing one sentence about,
it
is not worth pushing out.
If the update fixes a bug which is properly mentioned in the bugs
field,
why does this fact need to be mentioned again in the update notes? It
should be obvious that an update fixing a bug is worth pushing out.
Also instead of writing policy, better make Bodhi allow to easier write
good update notes, e.g. by using/including the upstream, RPM or GIT
changelog, so it can be easily used if it already contains the
necessary
information.
The upstream, RPM or git changelog is never a good update description.
An update description should be a very clear high-level description of
what the update does. The audience is a normal end-user who has 300
updates to apply and wants to know what they do. This person is not
going to spend six hours reading changelogs.
"This update simply fixes the bugs listed" is an okay description - it
tells the reader what they need to know and re-assures them that the
update doesn't do anything *else*. Of course, if it does, you need to
explain that: "This update includes a new upstream release which fixes
the bugs listed. You can find other changes in the upstream description
at http://www.blahblah.foo";.
I can't personally conceive of a case in which it would make sense to
simply have some kind of changelog as the update description. That is
not what the description is for.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
