On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:32:02PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Suggested replacement: > > The part of the version number after the epoch must not be reused for a > version of the package with different contents, even if the version > of the package previously using that part of the version number is > no longer present in any archive suites. > > Epochs are not included in the names of the files that compose > source packages, or in the filenames of binary packages, so reusing > a version number, even if the epoch differs, results in identically > named files with different contents. This causes various problems.
Sounds better than mine. I'd re-add "once that package has been accepted into the archive", to make it obvious that resubmissions to NEW and/or mentors are expected to reuse version numbers of what they amend. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ When I visited the US a couple decades ago, Hillary molested and ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ groped me. You don't believe? Well, the burden of proof is on you! ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Flooding a douche with obviously false accusations makes your other ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ words dubious even when they happen to be true.
