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... 13 has so far lasted 4 months, 12 lasted 18 months, 11 lasted 5 months, 10 lasted 8 months, 9 lasted 2 months, 8 lasted 36 months. Let upstream be erratic for one-two Debian releases, and this issue might solve itself.
How do you conclude that? The data you present above says otherwise. 13->22 is a big jump and does not look like a 2-debian release thing.
And so reaching to 22.2.3 will take a very long time as well, if not _forever_ and that would mean keeping up with +really for several years. I do not think tagging this along with really is much better than adding in an epoch. (I personally find the former a bit more ugly for my taste)Neither "1:" nor "22.really." as prefix is beautiful, but as already stated the former is forever.
Why does the former even exist then?
The only reverse-dependency of this package is "node-prosemirror-markdown" and so it would not be too much work if an epoch is introduced....but it would be even less work to *not* introduce an epoch.
How much work does adding a "1:" in d/control for a single package take? I think this is bike-shedding here :)
Quoting Nilesh Patra (2022-08-19 18:21:14)Is tagging this along for so many years really is more worthy than an epoch?What is worthy about introducing an epoch here?
What is worthy about even the existence of epoch then? In any case, I think I am done keeping my point here. -- Best, Nilesh
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature