Hello Ian, On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:48:35PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Q1. Should the suite in the changelog entry be UNRELEASED, > or the suite at which the vcs branch is targeted ? > [...] > Q1: Replacing the suite with "UNRELEASED" means that it is not > possible to distinguish a branch intended for experimental from one > intended for sid, other than by branch name (and of course branch > names are often used for other purposes). I think this is very > undesirable. AFAICT only reason to use UNRELEASED is to prevent > accidental upload, but maybe we can do that some other way. Why do you think this is "very" undesirable? At worst, you have to ask the person who committed to the branch what their intention was, and you're probably talking to them anyway. (I don't disagree that it could be useful to have the intended suite indicated.) > Q2. Should the changelog entry be finalised ? That is, should it > have an uploader name and date ? Just a terminological point: I use "finalised" to mean "suite is not UNRELEASED and timestamp is not behind the last change" -- i.e. `dch -r` has been run and the result committed. I suspect I'm not alone in using "finalised" to refer to this, given the behaviour of `dch`. It is only the Emacs changelog mode which leaves no name and e-mail. > Q3. Should the version number be the intended next version number, > or should it be decorated with ~something ? If it should > be decorated, what should it be decorated with ? > [...] > Q3. If the version number is not decorated, then binaries (or even > source packages!) built for testing (or for other reasons other than > upload) are not always distinguishable from intended-for-release > builds. IMO this is very undesirable. If we use dgit for all our uploads then this doesn't really matter :) -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature