| 1 |
On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:05:08 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Wulf C. Krueger" <philantrop@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Saturday, May 5, 2007 03:23:41 PM Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> [Paludis configuration: * -> */*] |
| 5 |
> > Experience and user feedback has shown that in situations like this |
| 6 |
> > users want an accompanying news item even if the application does |
| 7 |
> > output deprecation warnings. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Currently, there are two news item in the Paludis overlay. Unless |
| 10 |
> earlier ones were removed, those two seem to be a fairly small sample |
| 11 |
> to deduce anything from. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
They were. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Furthermore, GLEP42 states: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> "News items must only be for important changes that may cause serious |
| 18 |
> upgrade or compatibility problems. Ordinary upgrade messages and |
| 19 |
> non-critical news items should remain in einfo notices." |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> 2007-05-04-paludis-0.24 doesn't fit this description. That isn't the |
| 22 |
> real problem, though. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This is sufficiently important to Paludis users that Paludis users |
| 25 |
should see a news item for it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> The real problem with issuing news items for trivial changes is that |
| 28 |
> people will just start marking such news items read without really |
| 29 |
> reading them or even stop synching news items completely. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
This is not a trivial change. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Then, elog and friends would be fully sufficient for informing users |
| 34 |
> about such configuration changes - under the circumstances of this |
| 35 |
> case at least. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
We already know from similar cases that this isn't true. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives