Hi Andrej, On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:50:46PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, at 17:45, Nilesh Patra wrote: > >> I agree, adding an epoch in this package doesn’t seem appropriate or > >> necessary. > > > > JTFR - Upstream released 12.0.4 in 2020, and they have reached 13.0.1 > > _now_ (after two years) > > Going by previous releases, the delta between one major release is > > atleast an year. > > > > And so reaching to 22.2.3 will take a very long time as well, if not > > _forever_ > > and that would mean keeping up with +really for several years. I do > > not think tagging this along with really is much better than adding in an > > epoch. > > (I personally find the former a bit more ugly for my taste) > > As Jonas said, an epoch cannot be undone, +really can, regardless when this > is going to happen.
I think ignoring when it happens is not the right way to see it. Even if we assume that upstream is going to work on this with the same effort, we will still end up waiting for a _decade_ for the +really to go away. Is tagging this along for so many years really is more worthy than an epoch? Note that the package might even go stale in such a long time, thought. > Both are ugly solutions, but an epoch is also evil, unlike +really 🙂 Hah, ;-D -- Best, Nilesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
