Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > > AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the > > package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce > > which policy versions are supported, e.g. in a stable release, by > > forbidding the too old versions. > > No, that is wrong. The reason we put in the Standards version is > to let the next developer know what to look for in the upgrading > checklist in policy in order to bring the package up to date with policy This assumes that the previous developer has correctly updated the package according to the stated Standards version. Which is, in the general case, wrong. This also assumes that the upgrading checklist contains all relevant information, which is also wrong for real cases. If you want to bring a random package up-to-date with the policy, it is generally more useful to look at its RC bugs, and also at its other bugs. Said otherwise, with the current state of our practice, the workflow you describe is flawed. Which makes the standards version declaration useless. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=