It is the norm for tools that are not practical to distribute in a release. Either because you always need the latest version regardless of codestream or because it does not make sense for people other than SUSE employees to use them. The only change your policies make is adding to the list tools that might have been practical to have in a release but due to technical difficulties with keeping them there they fell out or never got in to start with.
It's not the norm for openSUSE nor the SUSE SLE department... ;)
If a package hasn't gone through the Factory process, ie. it is not in either Tumbleweed or Leap, then the package cannot, should not, and must not be considered an output of the openSUSE Project and therefore it's quality and legal correctness cannot be attested to.
And I'm pretty sure our users only want software that works and that they can use and redistribute legally... or am I way off the mark with that?
Then let's focus the review on quality of the software and legal issues and not on formalism like listing patch files in the changelog.
Formalism like listing patches is something which makes automated review of quality and legal issues significantly more practable. Without formal tracking of patches, there can easily be changes that invalidate such quality or legal reviews. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org