On 7 March 2016 at 11:50, Dmitry Smirnov <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. :) I suppose it could be handy when something irrelevant is shipped > in orig.tar. After all "~dfsg" can be changed for "+dfsg" but not the other > way, at least not after upload...
Yeah, sorry -- this is my main concern. I agree with Paul that switching "ds" to "dfsg" is a little bit misleading, but I'm OK conceding that one as long as we leave ourselves with some version number breathing room by using ~ instead of + (which is why I was OK with a reject since the version number of the fixed upload would be lower anyhow so would require it regardless). > Though IMHO on this instance there is nothing to fix. > Just Tianon being a bit territorial and me being impatient... :) Well, I do have to admit that I was pretty surprised to have asked for some review/sponsorship and to see that the version numbering scheme was modified without discussion, which is the crux of what felt wrong to me here. Whitespace and versioning are my main pedantic vices. I can definitely understand if you'd rather not spend any more cycles on the package after this, but I know I'd certainly appreciate the help (and my only ask would be that we switch + back to ~). Sorry for the woes! >.< ♥, - Tianon 4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36 4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4 _______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
