On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:55:13 +0200, Wouter Verhelst
wrote:
>Someone using 22.something rather than 12.something in a version number,
>to me, sounds like someone making a "serious mistake".
>
>So this is *exactly* what epochs are meant for!
Exactly my feeling. In the last years, we have been
* Wouter Verhelst [2022-08-22 14:55]:
Someone using 22.something rather than 12.something in a version number,
to me, sounds like someone making a "serious mistake".
So this is *exactly* what epochs are meant for!
+1
The something+reallysomethingelse convention is evil and should never
have
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 04:37:46PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Yadd (2022-08-19 10:21:17)
> > some months ago, a bad upstream tag changed node-markdown-it version to
> > 22.2.3 instead of 10.0.0. So I'd like to change node-markdown-it version
> > into 1:13.0.1
>
> Since upstream is
Hello,
On Sat 20 Aug 2022 at 03:53PM GMT, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 03:29:59PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>> > > Epochs cause problems, [...]
>> > which are? (I agree they are ugly and should often be avoided, but I don't
>> > see any unsolved problems with them, which
]] Holger Levsen
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 06:00:44PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > Epochs cause problems, [...]
>
> which are? (I agree they are ugly and should often be avoided, but I don't
> see any unsolved problems with them, which is why I'm asking.)
IIRC, they're not recorded in the
Quoting Pirate Praveen (2022-08-20 23:01:07)
>
>
> On ശ, ഓഗ 20, 2022 at 3:53 വൈകു, Holger Levsen
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 03:29:59PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> >> > > Epochs cause problems, [...]
> >> > which are? (I agree they are ugly and should often be avoided,
> >> but
On വെ, ഓഗ 19, 2022 at 6:00 വൈകു, Simon McVittie
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 at 21:36:24 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
Are we going to deny every epoch request or this is going to be
subjective?
If there was a correct objective rule for what to do, we'd be applying
that rule mechanically,
On ശ, ഓഗ 20, 2022 at 3:53 വൈകു, Holger Levsen
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 03:29:59PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> > Epochs cause problems, [...]
> which are? (I agree they are ugly and should often be avoided,
but I don't
> see any unsolved problems with them, which is why I'm
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 03:29:59PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> > > Epochs cause problems, [...]
> > which are? (I agree they are ugly and should often be avoided, but I don't
> > see any unsolved problems with them, which is why I'm asking.)
> The standard one is that people use them to revert
Hi Holger (2022.08.20_00:04:13_+)
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 06:00:44PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > Epochs cause problems, [...]
>
> which are? (I agree they are ugly and should often be avoided, but I don't
> see any unsolved problems with them, which is why I'm asking.)
The standard
Tobias Frost writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:00:58PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:51:14PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>> > > As Jonas said, an epoch cannot be undone, +really can, regardless when
>> > > this is going to happen.
>> >
>> > I think ignoring when it
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:00:58PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:51:14PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> > > As Jonas said, an epoch cannot be undone, +really can, regardless when
> > > this is going to happen.
> >
> > I think ignoring when it happens is not the right way
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 06:00:44PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Epochs cause problems, [...]
which are? (I agree they are ugly and should often be avoided, but I don't
see any unsolved problems with them, which is why I'm asking.)
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:50:46PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> As Jonas said, an epoch cannot be undone, +really can, regardless when this
> is going to happen. Both are ugly solutions, but an epoch is also evil,
> unlike +really
it's still only version number cosmetics, or nit-picking or
On 8/19/22 23:02, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Nilesh Patra (2022-08-19 17:45:57)
JTFR - Upstream released 12.0.4 in 2020, and they have reached 13.0.1 _now_
(after two years)
Going by previous releases, the delta between one major release is atleast an
year.
Seems to me that roughly...
Quoting Nilesh Patra (2022-08-19 17:45:57)
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 04:43:17PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, at 16:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Quoting Yadd (2022-08-19 10:21:17)
> > >> some months ago, a bad upstream tag changed node-markdown-it version
On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 at 21:36:24 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Are we going to deny every epoch request or this is going to be subjective?
If there was a correct objective rule for what to do, we'd be applying
that rule mechanically, not asking our fellow developers for advice.
Epochs cause
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:51:14PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> > As Jonas said, an epoch cannot be undone, +really can, regardless when this
> > is going to happen.
>
> I think ignoring when it happens is not the right way to see it. Even if we
> assume that
> upstream is going to work on this
Hi Andrej,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:50:46PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, at 17:45, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> >> I agree, adding an epoch in this package doesn’t seem appropriate or
> >> necessary.
> >
> > JTFR - Upstream released 12.0.4 in 2020, and they have
On Fri, Aug 19 2022 at 05:50:46 PM +02:00:00 +02:00:00, Andrej Shadura
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, at 17:45, Nilesh Patra wrote:
I agree, adding an epoch in this package doesn’t seem
appropriate or necessary.
JTFR - Upstream released 12.0.4 in 2020, and they have reached
13.0.1
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 04:43:17PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, at 16:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Yadd (2022-08-19 10:21:17)
> >> some months ago, a bad upstream tag changed node-markdown-it version to
> >> 22.2.3 instead of 10.0.0. So I'd like to
Hi,
On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, at 16:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Yadd (2022-08-19 10:21:17)
>> some months ago, a bad upstream tag changed node-markdown-it version to
>> 22.2.3 instead of 10.0.0. So I'd like to change node-markdown-it version
>> into 1:13.0.1
>
> Since upstream is already
Quoting Yadd (2022-08-19 10:21:17)
> some months ago, a bad upstream tag changed node-markdown-it version to
> 22.2.3 instead of 10.0.0. So I'd like to change node-markdown-it version
> into 1:13.0.1
Since upstream is already at 10, is it unlikely that they will reach 22
in the foreseeable
Hi,
some months ago, a bad upstream tag changed node-markdown-it version to
22.2.3 instead of 10.0.0. So I'd like to change node-markdown-it version
into 1:13.0.1
Cheers,
Yadd
Am 20.05.22 um 11:23 schrieb Pirate Praveen:
On വ്യാ, മേയ് 19 2022 at 04:39:23 വൈകു -05:00:00 -05:00:00, Richard Laager
wrote:
On 5/19/22 05:42, Pirate Praveen wrote:
So current version in the archive is 22.2.3+dfsg+~12.2.3-1
The fixed version we want is 10.0.0+dfsg+~cs16.6.17-1
I have
On വ്യാ, മേയ് 19 2022 at 04:39:23 വൈകു
-05:00:00 -05:00:00, Richard Laager wrote:
On 5/19/22 05:42, Pirate Praveen wrote:
So current version in the archive is 22.2.3+dfsg+~12.2.3-1
The fixed version we want is 10.0.0+dfsg+~cs16.6.17-1
I have no dog in this fight as they say, but...
How
On 5/19/22 05:42, Pirate Praveen wrote:
So current version in the archive is 22.2.3+dfsg+~12.2.3-1
The fixed version we want is 10.0.0+dfsg+~cs16.6.17-1
I have no dog in this fight as they say, but...
How fast does upstream bump versions? With a 10.x, I wonder if it might
be relatively
Hi,
While embedding @types/markdown-it in node-markdown-it we made a
mistake in calculating the resulting upstream version (since uscan was
not working for downloading current version it was calculated manually).
So current version in the archive is 22.2.3+dfsg+~12.2.3-1
The fixed version
28 matches
Mail list logo
