On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 00:33, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 15:11, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > [T]here's no good reason I can see to re-use a release number >> > after it's uploaded. >> >> Because it never reach the archive, so it's better to keep the same >> version for a REJECTED package > > Why is it better? What benefit does it bring to retain the same > version string, including release number, for two different packages > that have both been uploaded by the maintainer? > >> jumping revision is useless. > > It's useful because it clearly distinguishes two different package > uploads by the maintainer. By definition, they are at least different > enough that one was REJECTED and the later one hopes not to meet the > same fate. > > That keeps discussions about which one is which easy, and it even > makes it trivial to distinguish in the package changelog, by > separating the two releases and describing what was done for the later > one to make it different. > > That's a tangible benefit, not "useless". What is the benefit in not > doing that?
Because it doesn't add any information for the end users, if not confusion: it seems that 2 different version reached the archive, since the users will see 2 different entries in the changelog (for example using apt-listchanges) when indeed there is only 1 package uploaded after the one previou in the archive. So, simply changing the current REJECTED changelog entry adding/modifing/removing items in it it's clearer. Ah, did I forgot to remember that "Our priorities are our users and free software"? Sandro -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
