[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: objecting to +nmuX syntax (was DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads (final call for review))

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 08:37:17PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >    The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX,
> I already objected to this in the past, and I'm loudly objecting again
> now. Some people on IRC shared this objection; I'm opening a subthread
> to see if I'm alone on this, or what.

I disagree with your objection.

Looking from the expressiveness point of view, +nmuX is exactly the same
as the current convention. In addition, it has the advantage of being
clearer, since it does explicitly refer to the "nmu", without needing
eye parsing of dots which also appear elsewhere in version numbers.

Can you please point (at least me) to where you, or anybody else,
explained the reasons of the objection?


Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
I'm still an SGML person,this newfangled /\ All one has to do is hit the
XML stuff is so ... simplistic  -- Manoj \/ right keys at the right time

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: