On Jan 12, 2012, at 4:14 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> As long as I'm suggesting changes, I know that I suggested using xxx
> in dates earlier, because we don't know when we're going to release in
> advance, but it makes Debian package builders unhappy, so I now think
> that it would be best to put real dates in debian/changelog even if
> they're wrong about release dates; they could at least reflect the
> time at which we wrote the entry. For NEWS, I'm happy to keep current
> practice.
How about this revised incremental. Does Debian complain if the dates aren't
strictly in order? The 1.3.0-1 date comes after the 1.4.0-1 date, since it
hasn't been set yet.
--Justin
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 01a5b80..47ee506 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+openvswitch (1.5.90-1) unstable; urgency=low
+ [ Open vSwitch team ]
+ * New upstream version
+ - Nothing yet! Try NEWS...
+
+ -- Open vSwitch team <dev@openvswitch.org> Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:37:00 +0000
+
openvswitch (1.5.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
[ Open vSwitch team ]
* New upstream version
@@ -13,7 +20,7 @@ openvswitch (1.5.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
- ovsdb-tool now uses the typical database and schema installation
directories as defaults.
- -- Open vSwitch team <dev@openvswitch.org> Mon, xx xxx xxxx 23:36:00 +0000
+ -- Open vSwitch team <dev@openvswitch.org> Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:36:00 +0000
openvswitch (1.4.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
[ Open vSwitch team ]
@@ -45,7 +52,7 @@ openvswitch (1.4.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
python-argparse to avoid pulling in python2.6
(closes: #653645)
- -- Open vSwitch team <dev@openvswitch.org> Mon, xx xxx xxxx 23:36:00 +0000
+ -- Open vSwitch team <dev@openvswitch.org> Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:36:00 +0000
openvswitch (1.3.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
