Hello, On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:59, Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > Sandro Tosi <mo...@debian.org> writes: >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:16, George Danchev <danc...@spnet.net> wrote: >> > My context analyzer claims [1] that what Ben wrote was more like >> > question (though the question mark and interrogative form were >> > missing;-), rather than a ironed rule. >> >> Well, the way he wrote (and he is usually very careful at writing) >> it seems like a preamble for the real question. > > Perhaps " I'd like to know that I'm wrong, or that I'm right but > there is a way to get around it." was not clear enough?
Ok about this particular aspect, there are some sponsors that require the have a new revision each "iteration" (sponsoree RFS, sponsor replies, sponsoree needs to do changes to package), others that do not want this, others that adapt to both situations. So you're wrong thinking this is a general recommendation or wide used (something like a "should" or "must"), but you're right thinking it's a recommendations sometimes done, that you might *consider* doing as long as your sponsor agrees Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org