On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:11:52 -0500 Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz <rodrigo@nul-unu.com> wrote: > So far, all discussion I've seen about whether to collapse changes > made during sponsorship review into a single debian revision for > upload have focused in the case of an initial package upload. Really? My perception was that upgrades and updates are also covered in the same way as the ITP. It makes little sense to change the method after initial upload unless the maintainer is also changing sponsor. > Does anyone have any special arguments for doing it one way or another > in the case of an upgrade? ? My preference is mainly regarding upgrades. http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/#increment I have no problems with "missing numbers" when the update is 1.2.3-4 etc. Others disagree. I don't want to use ~foo (be that ~rfs or any other suffix) because I find that ugly. Others want to use tilde suffixes of various kinds. None of these preferences are "invalid" or necessarily better than any other, it's just preference. Unfortunately, that means that changing sponsor can mean changing the method but that is inherent in the current system. So 0.0.1-1 gets an RFS but it is 0.0.1-4 that I upload to close the ITP with appropriate -v and -sa options to debuild and pdebuild. 0.0.2 is released, 0.0.2-1 has a minor problem, so 0.0.2-2 gets uploaded. The PTS records 0.0.1-4 uploaded to unstable and the changelog lists 0.0.1-1, -2, -3 and -4. The next PTS record is 0.0.2-2 and clicking on the changelog link shows 0.0.2-1 and 0.0.2-2 (on top of the previous changelog entries). By 0.0.3 or 0.0.4, the maintainer is in a better position to prepare updated packages and -1 is likely to be good enough to upload. It is at this point that I'd be considering activating the proposals from the GR, once the infrastructure for that is in place. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpkA7DyAPill.pgp
Description: PGP signature