Re: About Feature enhancement Updates Policy
Adam Williamson wrote: Just to make sure something in Kevin's mail is sufficiently emphasized: the thing that's bad in the Abiword example is not the 'feature enhancement' part, it's the 'user experience change' part. The WordStar 4.0 compatibility is fine, it's the pie menus that are a problem. An update which enhances features without changing the normal user experience is not against the policy. But how is hiding http://; by default (with the preference to unbreak this tucked away under about:config) in a Firefox security update not against the policy? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: About Feature enhancement Updates Policy
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 05:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: Just to make sure something in Kevin's mail is sufficiently emphasized: the thing that's bad in the Abiword example is not the 'feature enhancement' part, it's the 'user experience change' part. The WordStar 4.0 compatibility is fine, it's the pie menus that are a problem. An update which enhances features without changing the normal user experience is not against the policy. But how is hiding http://; by default (with the preference to unbreak this tucked away under about:config) in a Firefox security update not against the policy? Firefox is a special case because it's pretty impossible to backport fixes to an old Firefox branch. The policy does allow for flexibility in the case of recalcitrant upstreams. You already know this, as it's already been explained when you've complained about Firefox in the past. Continuing to raise it as if an explanation hadn't been provided is disingenous. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: About Feature enhancement Updates Policy
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 11:42 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: Abiword releases a new version that adds compatibility with WordStar 4.0 documents. It also completely updates the user interface to use pie menus. This would be a feature enhancement with a major user experience change, and would not be allowed. Is that requirement honored? Because unless I miss something there is a lot of updates that include only enhancements. Is not my will to create a controversy but perhaps there is something in the guideliness that needs (at the risk of sounding repeating) update Perhaps you mean 'enforced' ? Yup, I do, I wrote it in a hurry and my english sometimes is not so good :) Thanks for your explanation, it's somewhat better that I can read at wiki :) Just to make sure something in Kevin's mail is sufficiently emphasized: the thing that's bad in the Abiword example is not the 'feature enhancement' part, it's the 'user experience change' part. The WordStar 4.0 compatibility is fine, it's the pie menus that are a problem. An update which enhances features without changing the normal user experience is not against the policy. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: About Feature enhancement Updates Policy
2011/9/25 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:19:45 -0300 Sergio Belkin seb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I've read the examples about updates allowed and I've read in examples section: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Examples Abiword releases a new version that adds compatibility with WordStar 4.0 documents. It also completely updates the user interface to use pie menus. This would be a feature enhancement with a major user experience change, and would not be allowed. Is that requirement honored? Because unless I miss something there is a lot of updates that include only enhancements. Is not my will to create a controversy but perhaps there is something in the guideliness that needs (at the risk of sounding repeating) update Perhaps you mean 'enforced' ? Yup, I do, I wrote it in a hurry and my english sometimes is not so good :) If there is an enhancement update that adds to, but doesn't change the user experience, thats fine. And let's say that we have a package foo-5.5 that has libfoo.so 1.0.0 and you make a package 6.0 with library libfoo.so 2.0.0. What should I do: a. Submit foo 6.0 as an update b. Submit foo 6.0 that coexists with foo 5.5 c. Submit foo 6.0 only for rawhide. What is the right option? As with most things in life: It depends. ;) Very likely the answer is c. If there's a security bug or serious problem that is solved only in the new version and can't be easily backported to the existing one you could push it in stable releases. You should ask for an exception for that most likely. Note that if other packages depend on this library, you MUST coordinate with all consumers of that library to make sure they work with the new version and push the update at the same time, etc. b would be an option if there's some reason to keep the old version around... ie, consumers aren't updating to work with the new version and won't for a long time. This would also be done in rawhide unless there was a very good reason not to. Thanks for your explanation, it's somewhat better that I can read at wiki :) kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- -- Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
About Feature enhancement Updates Policy
Hi, I've read the examples about updates allowed and I've read in examples section: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Examples Abiword releases a new version that adds compatibility with WordStar 4.0 documents. It also completely updates the user interface to use pie menus. This would be a feature enhancement with a major user experience change, and would not be allowed. Is that requirement honored? Because unless I miss something there is a lot of updates that include only enhancements. Is not my will to create a controversy but perhaps there is something in the guideliness that needs (at the risk of sounding repeating) update And let's say that we have a package foo-5.5 that has libfoo.so 1.0.0 and you make a package 6.0 with library libfoo.so 2.0.0. What should I do: a. Submit foo 6.0 as an update b. Submit foo 6.0 that coexists with foo 5.5 c. Submit foo 6.0 only for rawhide. What is the right option? Sorry if I did 2 questions at once. Thanks in advance -- -- Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: About Feature enhancement Updates Policy
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:19:45 -0300 Sergio Belkin seb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I've read the examples about updates allowed and I've read in examples section: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Examples Abiword releases a new version that adds compatibility with WordStar 4.0 documents. It also completely updates the user interface to use pie menus. This would be a feature enhancement with a major user experience change, and would not be allowed. Is that requirement honored? Because unless I miss something there is a lot of updates that include only enhancements. Is not my will to create a controversy but perhaps there is something in the guideliness that needs (at the risk of sounding repeating) update Perhaps you mean 'enforced' ? If there is an enhancement update that adds to, but doesn't change the user experience, thats fine. And let's say that we have a package foo-5.5 that has libfoo.so 1.0.0 and you make a package 6.0 with library libfoo.so 2.0.0. What should I do: a. Submit foo 6.0 as an update b. Submit foo 6.0 that coexists with foo 5.5 c. Submit foo 6.0 only for rawhide. What is the right option? As with most things in life: It depends. ;) Very likely the answer is c. If there's a security bug or serious problem that is solved only in the new version and can't be easily backported to the existing one you could push it in stable releases. You should ask for an exception for that most likely. Note that if other packages depend on this library, you MUST coordinate with all consumers of that library to make sure they work with the new version and push the update at the same time, etc. b would be an option if there's some reason to keep the old version around... ie, consumers aren't updating to work with the new version and won't for a long time. This would also be done in rawhide unless there was a very good reason not to. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
