On Thursday 21 September 2006 16:51, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.21.1526 +0200]: > > I think the reasoning is that it is the extra step for sponsors to > > build with -v. > > ... and sometimes -sa.
That is a sponsoree job to mention to... as a maintainer note. > > Perhaps we could have a convention that the version number is > > incremented as you like, but if the sponsor requests it the maintainer > > collapses the entries. > > > > Would that be acceptable? > > How about we use > > 1.2-3~mentors.1 > 1.2-3~mentors.2 > 1.2-3~mentors.3 > > and when the sponsor pulls it, s/he just drops the ~mentors.* suffix > and uploads -3 while simply concatenating the changelog entries of > the intermediary versions, using the most recent stanza's date for > the final stanza? That would cause sponsoree synchronizing problems... to delete those ~mentors.* suffixes in his/her/ local copy of VCS or whatever, when the package got uploaded and will also favour bad habits. Killing package history, either as a part of official debian archive or not is also bad. Really there is no need for any artificial tricks here. Sponsorees bump up the revision when they create a new package revision, just like DDs do. That is my personal opinion, and I'm not DD, but I refuse to learn any bad or artificial habits ;-) -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
