Hello, On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > When we get to tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new file name > uniqueness section could probably do with a cross-reference. Do you mean 3.2.2? > I did decide to make the text discouraging epochs a subsection. This is good. I'm also glad you included the point that epochs could still be used for recovering from very serious mistakes. On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > index 0771346..166cdd8 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > @@ -552,9 +552,10 @@ The three components here are: > omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the > ``upstream_version`` may not contain any colons. > > - It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older > - versions of a package, and also a package's previous version > - numbering schemes, to be left behind. > + Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme > + changes, but they must be used with care. You should not change > + the epoch, even in experimental, without getting consensus on > + debian-devel first. > > ``upstream_version`` > This is the main part of the version number. It is usually the > @@ -622,9 +623,23 @@ These two steps (comparing and removing initial non-digit strings and > initial digit strings) are repeated until a difference is found or both > strings are exhausted. > > -Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind mistakes > -in version numbering, and to cope with situations where the version > -numbering scheme changes. It is *not* intended to cope with version > +Epochs should be used sparingly > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > + > +Note that the purpose of epochs is to cope with situations where the > +upstream version numbering scheme changes and to allow us to leave > +behind serious mistakes. > +If you think that increasing the epoch is the right solution, > +you should consult debian-devel and get consensus before doing so > +(even in experimental). > + > +Epochs should not be used when a package needs to be rolled back. > +In that case, use the ``+really`` convention: for example, if you > +uploaded ``2.3-3`` and now you need to go backwards to upstream 2.2, > +call your reverting upload something like ``2.3+really2.2-1``. > +Eventually, when we upload upstream 2.4, the +really part can go away. > + > +Epochs are also not intended to cope with version > numbers containing strings of letters which the package management > system cannot interpret (such as ``ALPHA`` or ``pre-``), or with silly > orderings. [#]_ Seconded -- thank you for a nice patch. I'm mildly distressed that we have two patches that I am hoping to get into the next release of Policy that add subsubsubsections (i.e. the section number contains three periods) but I think it's the right thing to do in both cases. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature