Hi, Justin El 05/07/26 a las 08:18, Justin B Rye escribió: > Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > > I've just pushed to the announcements repo these two drafts: > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/publicity-team/announcements/-/blob/master/en/2026/20260708-bookworm-lts-begins.wml?ref_type=heads > > https://salsa.debian.org/publicity-team/announcements/-/blob/master/en/2026/20260831-bullseye-lts-eol.wml?ref_type=heads > > > > to announce the handover of Debian 12 to LTS, and EOL of Debian 11 LTS. > > > > Could you please review them? > > Okay, inline commented diffs and attached revised versions:
Thanks!
>
> > --- 20260708-bookworm-lts-begins.wml.orig 2026-07-05 05:25:44.414207560
> > +0100
> > +++ 20260708-bookworm-lts-begins.wml 2026-07-05 06:51:34.412113413
> > +0100
> > @@ -13,9 +13,9 @@
> >
> > <p>
> > On 12 June 2026, three years after the initial release, the regular
>
> (I'm standardising to this date format everywhere else, since it's the
> format that styleguides generally recommend.)
OK, thanks. But, when Debian has started using that date format? I
still see the format that I used in the trixie release information:
("Debian 13.5 was released on May 16th, 2026. Debian 13.0 was initially
released on August 9th, 2025.").
https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/
And used because of that. Any way, I'm happy to accept your change.
For the future, is there any written guideline about formats (in
general)?
[snip]
Thanks a lot for your review!
-- Santiago
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
