Re: Policy Weekly Issue #4/8: Dates in package versions
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila Doncel <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
Santiago> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 24 Oct 1997, Manoj
Santiago> Srivastava wrote:
Santiago> This should be considered as a bug (wishlist),
>> I object. This versioning scheme may need *one* epoch, in the year
>> 2000, if and only if the upstream author continues with the version
>> scheme then (the version in the year 2000 may simple be 100). I do
>> not see this as a bug, or anything that requires any changes
>> yet. Lets not create bugs just because we can.
Santiago> I meant: We may consider them as *bugs of type wishlist*,
Santiago> because it is "reasonable" to use four digits for the
Santiago> year. Consider this just as a nice thing, like preserving
Santiago> time stamps in doc files. [ I don't want anybody to close
Santiago> this wishlist-type bugs just because "they are not
Santiago> bugs"... ]
I understood what you meant, and I still object. I think that
it is also reasonable to have 2 year names in package versions. It is
a popular concept (guess the version number of the most "popular" os
in the owrld, not that that in itself is any justification).
One may widh that things worked differently, (I wish vi were
"modeless"), but that does not make it a valid bug. We have enough
bugs cluttering up the system (Ye gods, did you see the size of the
last weekly report?) to gratituously invent more.
Evidently, we have a difference of opinion whether, say,
LaTeX2HTML 96.1h is a bad versioning scheme. I don't think it is, but
you do. The version number scheme shall not create a problem until
the year 2000, (at which point the version may just become 100, no
problem again).
An One epoch solution exists, I do not feel that holding a bug
in perpetuity (even a wishlist bug) is justified. (I can come up with
thouasands of wishes, and then move from vi to some other package ;-)
Santiago> Rewrite of the last paragraph:
Santiago> * We shall consider upstream sources using 2-digit years as
Santiago> an "oddity". This is not a bug, but it is valid as a
Santiago> wishlist. In this case we will not "fix" it until it is
Santiago> changed upstream.
We shall consider upstream sources using 2-digit years as
an "oddity". This is not a bug, but we wish it were changed
upstream. No action or bug report is justified, though.
manoj
--
"If scientific discovery has not been an unalloyed blessing, if it
has conferred on mankind the power not only to create but also to
annihilate, it has at the same time provided humanity with a supreme
challenge and a supreme testing." John F. Kennedy
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: