Re: A thought on urgency
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 11:09:54PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > > happened in the versions you can no longer see [1.1 to 1.3 in this
> > > example]. That reduces the usability of the feature to about the level
> > > of a cheap hack..
>
> > I know. I hope someone comes up with a way to make it work. The control
> > file has always been human readable, and we shouldn't change that.
>
> I don't see how a number is not readable.. We already have version
> numbers that define order.
>
> > We already get enough oops-LAST-version-was-HIGH-priority-not-this-one
> > uploads with it in the changelog. Putting it in the control file will
> > just make them more common.
>
> Actually it should make it less common because you have to explicitly go
> and increment that field. If you don't then the priority is automatically
> low.
>
> You might see a new class of problems where people forget to increment the
> serial and set a high priority though.. This could probably actually be
> caught though. Catching this would catch the
> oops-LAST-version-was-HIGH-priority-not-this-one problem too.
>
> What is that field in the change log used for anyhow? Maybe just tank it
> :P
I believe AJ's `testing' distribution uses it to reduce the amount of
time to wait before including something in the new set of programs.
The higher the urgency, the less time it waits.
Anand
Reply to: