Hi, On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:42:20AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > This change was also suggested by Guillem Jover in > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735840#20 and I tend > to agree with the logic of grouping upstream related meta-data > in a single directory.
Quoting this mail: (As a side note, I'd rather have liked to use something like debian/upstream/whatever.ext, and was considering filing a bug report, which could be followed by allowing to have debian/upstream/watch, but it's probably too late for the latter. :/ ) I wonder in how far it is to late for debian/watch and not for the file debian/upstream. Yey, I'm aware that we have two to three orders of magnitude more debian/watch files than debian/upstream files - but how to know when it is to late or not? > That said I also agree that this change is mainly a matter of coherence > and esthetics and thus should not break anything and thus everything > should support both locations for a long period of time. Seems we all agree on the esthetics issue but I for myself would think that *if* we go for esthetics than we should make this strict and complete or not at all. Otherwise I see no point in wasting developer time for half baken things. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de _______________________________________________ devscripts-devel mailing list devscripts-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devscripts-devel