"Dr. Tobias Quathamer" <[email protected]> writes: > I don't really see a problem here.
I'm happy to follow your suggested path, or the path suggested in earlier discussions (which I've been following so far), but would really like the choice to be written down so we get consistency in the process across the team. I think both approaches have reasonable arguments, and (for me) this is mostly an aesthetic thing with no clear technically right or wrong. I have a mild preference for letting golang-*-dev track latest upstream version because I think that matches how non-Go versioned libraries are usually maintained in Debian, but I'm happy to trade that preference for your approach if we can get team consensus to write it down in policy. Others? The version migration naming aspect is not discussed in any Go team policy document, I think, so maybe we can arive at a small snippet to add for some current document, apply that patch and publish it. What do people think? Getting back to make ANY improvements to Go team policy would be nice IMHO. It doesn't seem sustainable for the policy document to be stuck. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
