https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55841
--- Comment #10 from Filipus Klutiero <chea...@gmail.com> --- Dear Luca, (In reply to Luca Toscano from comment #7) > Hi Filipus, > > following up on your last message: > > > Calling this "misleading" is to put it mildly. > > Would you mind to put an example of how the email message should look like > to not be "misleading"? Do you have a proposal to make a change in the > email's format? If so please add it to this bug so we'll be able to discuss > it :) I have suggested a replacement for the misleading sentence in the Description. Comment 3 includes a superior proposal from Vincent Bray which goes further. That being said, I have to agree with Comment 9 - there is an even simpler solution. Just get rid of the 2.x changes description. At 2.2.31, the current approach gets ridiculous. At most 2% of httpd users are still using 2.0. Mentioning specific changes of 2.2 in 2.2.31's announcement while failing to mention specific change of 2.2.31 is itself misleading, though not on the same scale as the misleading sentence I reported. Therefore, I would recommend to either start with a list of specific changes in each patch release, or to remove the list of specific changes of 2.x. > > The fact that no comment "supports the issue", as you describe it, does not > > make a ticket invalid. A ticket is only invalid if its claim is incorrect. > > I'd like to clarify this point. I am trying to clear old bugs in the huge > (~1500) buglist of httpd and for this one I thought that the absence of > traction/support, together with the fact that I didn't really shared your > point of view, was an indicator that the email content wasn't misleading. > This was my bad since I should have probably added a comment with my > thoughts before closing the bug and marking it as invalid, lesson learned > for the future and my apologies :) Apologies as convincing as these cannot be rejected. > > I disagree about it being the "responsibility of who downloads/update the > > new version of httpd to check the changelog for the new minor release (not > > relying only on the email message)." Users should be able to trust email > > sent by the foundation. > > I agree with you partially. The emails from the foundation should be trusted > but it is indeed a best practice (at least in my opinion) for a > sysadmin/maintainer to check the Changelog to have a full and > precise/complete view of what will end up in production. Sure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org
