| 1 |
On Sat, 05 May 2007 14:44:49 -0700 |
| 2 |
Mike Doty <kingtaco@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Well, if you're going about improving it, start by adding in the |
| 4 |
> > Display-If-Upgrading-From-To: header. It'll be a nuisance to |
| 5 |
> > implement, but it'll be far more useful than any of the rest of |
| 6 |
> > this. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Your word doesn't inspire most of us. If you think this is a good |
| 9 |
> idea, you need to explain why. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
There's no way to mark a news item as "to be read" when a user upgrades |
| 12 |
from, say, <foo/bar-1.2 to >=foo/bar-1.2 . Ideally there would be. It |
| 13 |
wasn't in the first GLEP because it's trickier from a package manager |
| 14 |
implementation perspective. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> >> 2. Standards for news items: Based on the paludis news item |
| 17 |
> >> thread, it's clear we need some standards for what we release as |
| 18 |
> >> news. If combined with #1 we can set different standards and give |
| 19 |
> >> the users some more choice on what they accept and what we publish. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > It's quite simple. If releasing a news item improves the user |
| 22 |
> > experience of affected users more than not releasing it, the news |
| 23 |
> > item should be released. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> It clearly isn't that simple. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Well, it is in theory. In practice determining into which category a |
| 28 |
particular news item falls isn't so easy. Perhaps this should be left |
| 29 |
alone until after we have experience delivering, say, a few dozen news |
| 30 |
items to a wider audience. Currently the only evidence we have as to |
| 31 |
the level of news items expected by users is fairly limited. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives