Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Bug#891216: seconded 891216: Requre d-devel
consultation for epoch bump"):
> Incorrect epochs are a nuisance at best.
The problem is that they are a permanent nuisance. This discussion
was prompted when someone caused significant trouble by *only* bumping
the epoch. (We have other text saying not to do that but I don't
think that text would have prevented the error.)
> Yes, it's correct that epochs cause confusion, because some bits of our
> infrastructure drop the epoch in the filename. I submit that that is in
> fact a bug in that bit of infrastructure; epochs are a critical part of
> the version number, and they should not be dropped, ever.
There are very good reasons why epochs are dropped in filenames. I'm
afraid I stand by that decision.
> But if we're going to introduce the *requirement* to ask on -devel for
> every nitty bitty thing
I can see where you are coming from with this. Can I persuade you
that this is worthwhile in this case because enough other people care
about it, even if you personally think it's not that big an issue ?
> "Please note that introducing an epoch is an irreversible action. If
> you're uncertain of whether the introduction of the epoch is the right
> thing to do, it is best to ask on the debian-devel mailinglist."
One of the problems with your formulation is that people who do not
know what they are doing, do not know that they do not know what they
are doing. See Dunning & Kruger's paper.
(I know that "Dunning Kruger" is used as an insult, but that is ... at
best a very loose usage. Because not knowing that you are wrong is a
feature of being wrong, and doesn't imply stupidity.)
How about a "should" ? I think that most people won't ignore a
"should" unless they feel they understand why it's there.
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.
