Control: tags -1 + patch Thanks for the feedback. Please find attached a diff against current master.
Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"): > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > + Epochs should not usually be used when > > + a package needs to be rolled back (use the +really convention) > > + or to > > This needs to be reworded. "the +really convention" is probably not > really policy material (feels more like devref's) and therfore probably > not mentioned here. I agree with Sean on this. So, instead, I have documented what I think the +really convention consists of. If this turns out to be controversial then IMO we should drop the definition and leave a reference to an undefined term, since it is better to encourage use of that convention, even if ill-defined, than to let the reader use an epoch unaware that it's a bad idea. Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"): > On Mon, Feb 26 2018, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > And with this the mention of d-devel happened twice in your patch. > > This is Ian responding to the fact that epochs are discussed in two > places. > > I would rather fix that in a separate bug. I have not dealt with this in my attached patch. When we get to tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new file name uniqueness section could probably do with a cross-reference. I did decide to make the text discouraging epochs a subsection. Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"): > So I think we should have: > > You should not change the epoch for a package before this has been > discussed on the debian-devel mailing list and a consensus about > doing that has been reached. > > This is consistent with wording elsewhere in Policy. I've adopted your wording, thanks. > > + If you think that increasing the epoch is the right situation, > > + please consult debian-devel before doing so > > + (even in experimental). > > For consistency, s/please/you should/. Updated this wording too. I think you will like it better. Thanks, Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.