Overview
Request 532820 accepted
- Created by Vogtinator
- In state accepted
Request History
Vogtinator created request
factory-auto added opensuse-review-team as a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto added repo-checker as a reviewer
Please review build success
factory-auto accepted review
Check script succeeded
Output of check script (non-fatal):
Unknown license 'LGPL-2.1-with-Qt-Company-Qt-exception-1.1'
Unknown license 'LGPL-3.0-with-Qt-Company-Qt-exception-1.1'
Unknown license 'LGPL-2.1-with-Qt-Company-Qt-exception-1.1'
Unknown license 'LGPL-3.0-with-Qt-Company-Qt-exception-1.1'
licensedigger accepted review
ok
staging-bot added openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:14 as a reviewer
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:14"
staging-bot accepted review
Picked openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:14
namtrac accepted review
lgtm
repo-checker accepted review
cycle and install check passed
staging-bot approved review
ready to accept
staging-bot accepted review
ready to accept
dimstar_suse accepted request
Accept to openSUSE:Factory
@dimstar is very wary of .changes entries like that. You only provided a URL, that's not ok by our guidelines.
It's reasonably easy to bring across the general overview of the submission:
that should do it.
Would https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/tree/dist/changes-5.9.2/?h=v5.9.2 be a better link?
It is not about the hyperlink or its presence, it is about the absence of non-links.
There's nothing meaningful we can add there, except literally "Some bugs fixed, maybe some added" though. A list of all referenced bugs might be doable, but that doesn't really represent valuable information either.
Now they're adding bugs? As a user, I'd definitely want to know ;-)
Anyhow, looking at the different possibilities now explored here, note how each of these ways of wording convey a different urgency to the user:
I think the last three are all better than the first in the list.