[Mageia-dev] please stop doing "bugs" for updating magia 1

Fri Jan 13 14:36:03 CET 2012

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:28 AM, andre999 <andre999mga at laposte.net> wrote:
+> Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
+>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Juan Luis Baptiste<juancho at mageia.org>
+>>  wrote:
+>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Christian Lohmaier
+>>> <lohmaier+mageia at googlemail.com>  wrote:
+>>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Juan Luis Baptiste<juancho at mageia.org>
+>>>>  wrote:
+>>>>
+>>>>> [..]
+> To make things entirely clear, the agreed base policy (in various meetings)
+> was that updates should contain no new features.  Thus in general, a
+> (verified) bug fix only release from upstream would qualify as an update.
+> This being subject to exceptions, which were later agreed on after much
+> discussion.
+
+Thanks - this is the first time this has been stated explicitly.
+
+> I don't really see the point of doing all this arguing about a wiki page
+> that doesn't completely accord with update policy.  We just have to fix the
+> wiki page.
+
+Well - if you don't bother whether your policies are correct, you
+should not bother to publish them in the first place but refer to
+"whatever was discussed on the mailinglists".
+Yes, you have to fix the wiki page. But judging from this discussion
+people did not know what really is correct. The arguing is not about
+the wiki-page, but about the policy that is reflected by that wiki
+page.
+
+You did now clarify the policy as it should be, and that is fine. But
+please understand that the written policy did reflect a completely
+different picture.
+
+>> Yes, but this then changes the policy drastically (for the better, so
+>> please change it)
+>
+> It is not that drastic a change.  The effect is essentially the same,
+
+No, It is a drastic change from what is written. It probably is no big
+difference compared to what people actually do today, but the policy
+is changed drastically by this change.
+
+> although it is of course much easier -- and generally safer -- to apply a
+> (verified) bug fix only release from upstream.
+> As stated above, and mentioned by others posting to this thread, the wiki
+> page does not accurately affect the policy.
+
+Well, you might have a different interpretation of this thread, but I
+see people strongly supporting the policy as is written on the wiki,
+so it is far from clear.
+
+>> And when I write "whatever is against the policy" - I'm referring to
+>> what is written in the wiki, not what people actually do.
+>
+> Policy is what was agreed on, and not any errors that may exist in what is
+> written in the wiki.  We have corrected many similar errors in the wiki.
+
+If things were so clear, than people could have written exactly what
+you did and not continue with this discussion for so long.
+
+> Calling your understanding of the policy "stupid" is not necessarily the
+> most diplomatic approach.
+
+Again: I did judge what is written in the wiki. When policies are
+published, I have no other choice than to assume that what is written
+reflects the policy that was discussed and decided upon.
+And while it might not be diplomatic, I for sure prefer people
+actually writing what they mean. I of course fully agree that just
+writing "foo sucks" without stating how foo could suck less is
+inappropriate/waste of time.
+
+But well - thanks for making a concrete statement of what the policy
+/actually/ is.
+
+ciao
+Christian
+