Updates lacking descriptions

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Thu Aug 13 09:17:27 UTC 2009


On 08/13/2009 10:41 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Correct, such a step will add a significant bureaucratic burdons to
>> maintainers.
>>
>> As maintainers hate bureaucrazy and prefer investing time on dealing
>> with technical issues (such as bug fixes), this will likely introduce a
>> further reduction of the quality of Fedora.
>>
>> Further more, do you realise that any changelog is likely similarly
>> unreadable to most users?
>
> Nonsense, it's not bureaucracy to expect an update to actually say what
> changed and why you're pushing it.

No, as ususal, you are demonstrating your lack of competence and 
understanding:


Whether a changelog entry tells
- Update to upstream release 1.2.3

- Update due to http://ustreamurl/releasenote-1.2.3

- Upstream update:
.. <long verbose list of details>

is entirely irrelevant to both, you and to Aunt Tilly (she won't read 
them at all and even if she will not understand it).

Also, is naive to presume there always is a RH-BZ for each 
upgrade/update or that a bug upstream is fixes has ever been tripped 
over in Fedora.

With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly 
pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time to 
fullfill your solely burecratic demands.

>> PS.: Stop cross-posting to newsgroups. I consider everybody who does
>> this to behave rude.
>
> We're not cross-posting, we're replying to gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel
> only (using our NNTP clients). What Gmane does with it is out of our
> control. Any complaints about inadequacy of the Gmane gateway will have to
> go to Gmane.
No. You simply are violating the netiquette ... i.e. you are hostile and 
rude to this lists users - Stop this habit.





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list