Am 12.01.2012 19:01, schrieb Christian Lohmaier: > Hi Juan Luis, > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Juan Luis Baptiste <juan...@mageia.org> > wrote: >> [..] >> As I said, no one is talking about picking up a fix if there's a bug >> fix only release, it's for when it isn't and we need to reduce the >> chance of regressions by taking the modifications that *exactly* fix >> that bug. > I strongly disagree. The policy is stating the exact opposite. And > also Michael seems to defend the policy as it is written, and not your > interpretation here. > > That again you might have a different understanding of > bugfix-only-release. I think I stated mine often enough (increase in > micro version when package follows major.minor.micro versioning scheme > and no new features are introduced in micro releases). > > So please change the wording of the update policy accordingly > https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Updates_policy reads: > ########## > For the most part, an update should consist of a patched build of the > same version of the package released with the distribution, with a few > exceptions: > > * Software versions that are no longer supported upstream with updates > (firefox and thunderbird seem to fall into this category these days) > * Software that is version-bound to an online service (games, virus > scanners?) and will only work with the latest version. > * We will make exceptions for packages that did not make it into mga1 > and are additions to the distribution, provided they do not impact any > other packages and can pass full QA. > > Updates are not the appropriate place for packages created to satisfy > certain user's urges for "the latest". These types of builds belong in > backports. > ########## > I read it as "no version bumb is allowed (except for the three > exception-cases listed) - bugs are only fixed using patches", and I > don't see the interpretational freedom to allow upstream's bugfix > releases. Updating from 1.3.2 to 1.3.3 would not be in compliance with > the policy (if not in one of the three exception cases) - this is what > I have called stupid policy (and still do). > > ciao > Christian > Actually you're right there, currently the only case where a bugfix-only update would be allowed would be as an exception. And as those should be rare (hence the term exception) i don't think that's the intent of the third point.
So as some already stated this, as it seems to be allowed to ship bugfix-only releases as updates, where does the policy state that, and in the case where it doesn't, shouldn't we extent the policy if that is considered good practice? PS: Maybe next time you could improve on your wording, the policy may currently be incorrect, not reflecting good packaging practices, but as it's only a policy written by humans, it's not dumb. Just a hint. ;)