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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
