control: tag -1 + patch Hello, On Wed 30 Sep 2020 at 11:23AM +02, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2020-09-29 02:22, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Technically superfluous but I think helpful to the reader, so I suggest >> we just keep it. > > To be honest, as a reader, I found that to be the opposite. The "If > [epoch] is omitted" makes it sound as if there were an alternative > handling if it's not omitted. > > So the text > > If it is omitted then the upstream_version may not contain any colons > > actually means > > The upstream_version may not contain any colons > > > It gets slightly more confusing when one considers dashes: > upstream_revision may have a dash if a revision exists. > > But upstream_revision may not have a colon regardless of whether an > epoch is present or not; so the "If [epoch] is omitted" seems really odd. > > Anyway, just my thoughts. Perhaps I read too much into it. No, that's reasonable. Thank you to both Mattia and Guillem too for feedback. I am seeking seconds for the following patch: diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst index 0d7a3e9..a21a510 100644 --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst @@ -552,8 +552,7 @@ The three components here are: ``epoch`` This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be - omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the - ``upstream_version`` may not contain any colons. + omitted, in which case zero is assumed. Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme changes, but they must be used with care. You should not change -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature