Updates lacking descriptions

[Pierre-Yves]

On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 16:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 08/13/2009 03:42 PM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
> 
> > People who wants to write an extensive changelog will and people who
> > don't want won't.
> 
> Quality doesn't come from letting everybody do whatever they want.
Then I'm curious about:
1- How do you want to make this mandatory rather than advised ?
2- How are you going to check it ?
3- How do you cover cases where there are no changelog upstream ?
 :-)

Let me make things clear, I agree that the information should be there
and that it would be nice if we were doing it more (I include myself
here), but I don't see how that could become mandatory :-)

> > Btw IMHO changelog on the spec reflects change that happened to the
> > packaging (change in the spec) they do not reflect the change happened
> > to the software (changes documented in the changelog in the sources when
> > there is one).
> 
> There is a difference between the changelog and the bodhi update
> information. The latter also covers software changes.
Agreed here :)

Best regards,

Pierre