Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Control: tags -1 + patch

Thanks for the feedback.  Please find attached a diff against current
master.

Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"):
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >   + Epochs should not usually be used when
> >   + a package needs to be rolled back (use the +really convention)
> >   + or to
> 
> This needs to be reworded.  "the +really convention" is probably not
> really policy material (feels more like devref's) and therfore probably
> not mentioned here.

I agree with Sean on this.  So, instead, I have documented what I
think the +really convention consists of.

If this turns out to be controversial then IMO we should drop the
definition and leave a reference to an undefined term, since it is
better to encourage use of that convention, even if ill-defined, than
to let the reader use an epoch unaware that it's a bad idea.

Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"):
> On Mon, Feb 26 2018, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > And with this the mention of d-devel happened twice in your patch.
> 
> This is Ian responding to the fact that epochs are discussed in two
> places.
> 
> I would rather fix that in a separate bug.

I have not dealt with this in my attached patch.  When we get to
tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new file name uniqueness section
could probably do with a cross-reference.

I did decide to make the text discouraging epochs a subsection.

Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"):
> So I think we should have:
> 
>     You should not change the epoch for a package before this has been
>     discussed on the debian-devel mailing list and a consensus about
>     doing that has been reached.
> 
> This is consistent with wording elsewhere in Policy.

I've adopted your wording, thanks.

> >   + If you think that increasing the epoch is the right situation,
> >   + please consult debian-devel before doing so
> >   + (even in experimental).
> 
> For consistency, s/please/you should/.

Updated this wording too.  I think you will like it better.

Thanks,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.