On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 11:09:54PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: > > > > happened in the versions you can no longer see [1.1 to 1.3 in this > > > example]. That reduces the usability of the feature to about the level > > > of a cheap hack.. > > > I know. I hope someone comes up with a way to make it work. The control > > file has always been human readable, and we shouldn't change that. > > I don't see how a number is not readable.. We already have version > numbers that define order. > > > We already get enough oops-LAST-version-was-HIGH-priority-not-this-one > > uploads with it in the changelog. Putting it in the control file will > > just make them more common. > > Actually it should make it less common because you have to explicitly go > and increment that field. If you don't then the priority is automatically > low. > > You might see a new class of problems where people forget to increment the > serial and set a high priority though.. This could probably actually be > caught though. Catching this would catch the > oops-LAST-version-was-HIGH-priority-not-this-one problem too. > > What is that field in the change log used for anyhow? Maybe just tank it > :P
I believe AJ's `testing' distribution uses it to reduce the amount of time to wait before including something in the new set of programs. The higher the urgency, the less time it waits. Anand
