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

[Christian Lohmaier]

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