Lack of update information

[Rahul Sundaram]

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 01:12:23PM +0100, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
>>> Also, if the maintainer knows where the information about the update is
>>> it could be nice to have it in bodhi, but not mandatory. Something like
>>>
>>>  See some.site.org/release_notes.html for the changes.
>>>
>>> or
>>>  See /usr/share/doc/foo-1.0/NEWS for the changes.
>> The first one is nice, but the second one causes a problem: how can
>> you review the changes _before_ updating if the file listing changes
>> is inside the updated package ?
> 
> You can't. But this is something for upstream, in my opinion.

If upstream does it on their own, package maintainers must add pointers 
to it. If not, the job of summarizing the need for an update rests with 
the package maintainers since they are the ones pushing it to end users. 
Package maintainers can help upstream in the process if necessary as 
well. Version numbers by themselves don't mean much, if anything at all 
since they aren't used consistently across different projects or even 
between releases.  The whole point of enforcing a description field is 
to help end users get more information beyond just version numbers.

Rahul