| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> That'll just increase the amount of disagreement about news items |
| 3 |
> because it'll give people more pointless wording to argue over. |
| 4 |
After all, something I agree with. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> It's quite simple. If releasing a news item improves the user |
| 7 |
> experience of affected users more than not releasing it, the news item |
| 8 |
> should be released. |
| 9 |
What exactly in "Critical News Reporting" is unclear here? |
| 10 |
As everyone still talks about "News Reporting" it has to be the "Critical". |
| 11 |
Let's try to define it: |
| 12 |
"News items must only be for important changes that may cause serious upgrade |
| 13 |
or compatibility problems." (Source is GLEP 42) |
| 14 |
Let's get the next thing straight: |
| 15 |
Paludis will still work, after the upgrade, but it will produce warnings. |
| 16 |
So there are no problems at all, it still works just fine. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Plus, a message saying |
| 19 |
"You still use the old config file format. Please replace * with */*" |
| 20 |
can hardly be misunderstood, in contrast to what you claimed when saying |
| 21 |
> Experience has shown that without a news item, many users will ask for |
| 22 |
> clarification or confirmation before making any changes, and with a |
| 23 |
> news item users will be reassured that they're doing the right thing |
| 24 |
> and that this is a deliberate change. |
| 25 |
(Ciaran McCreesh today on 23:06:31) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If users dont trust the warning the code produces, why should they believe in |
| 28 |
a news item? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
It just aint a critical issue, unless Paludis will stop working unless the |
| 31 |
config is fixed, and deliberatly breaking it now, to get that news item |
| 32 |
anyway, is |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives