Hello,
On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for
>epoch bump [and 2 more messages]"):
>> 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 think I do. "Uniqueness of version numbers".
ISTM that your new section should refer to 3.2.2, because the
requirements of 3.2.2 are one reason to avoid epochs. In the other
direction, however, I can't see right now what sort of cross reference
you are thinking should be inserted in 3.2.2. A patch would be welcome.
This is all informative, so it doesn't needed to be seconded, so let's
not modify the patch to be seconded but instead make further commits --
my bug891216-spwhitton branch in the Policy repo has your patch applied.
>> 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.
>
> I did various git-grep to find out what rst syntax I should use for my
> subsubsection and discovered that there were quite a few already, all
> using ^^^^^.
>
> I don't think there is anything wrong with subsubsections. They ease
> all of reading, navigation, cross-referencing, and referencing from
> elsewhere.
I assume you mean 'subsubsubsection(s)' throughout.
I was being misled by the fact that subsubsubsections are elided from
the table of contents generated by Sphinx into thinking that both the
patches introduced a subsubsubsection for the first time.
--
Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature