Lack of update information

[Rahul Sundaram]

Chris Weyl wrote:

> 
> None of these "goals" will be helped by imposing a barely related new
> manual process requirement that you concede is "[c]ertainly of
> questionable value".

You aren't reading what I said. I said, the updates aren't useful 
without even a short sentence about what it is required.

> I suspect those on low-bandwidth connections would be better served by presto.

Presto works for some use cases but not others and is cpu intensive as 
well.

> Not to be blunt, but "too bad".  That's why we're called
> "maintainers", and they are "end users".  

Maintainers are supposed to serve and meet end user needs and not the 
other way around.

If "updating to 1.2.3" isn't
> good enough, and someone really wants to know what's going on with the
> package, then they should read upstream's changelog.  That's what it's
> there for, and why we incorporate it by reference.

Many maintainers don't and sometimes there is no proper upstream 
changelog to refer to. This is why, ultimately it is the maintainer's 
responsibility to summarize the need for an update. As I said earlier, 
upstream changelog would have no knowledge on Fedora downstream bugs, 
backported patches etc.

Rahul