On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:58:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Bug#891216: seconded 891216: Requre d-devel
> consultation for epoch bump"):
> > Incorrect epochs are a nuisance at best.
>
> The problem is that they are a permanent nuisance. This discussion
> was prompted when someone caused significant trouble by *only* bumping
> the epoch.
Can you point me towards the specifics?
Also, would a requirement in policy have prevented this, or was it just
a case of "the maintainer was a bit sloppy"? In that case, I believe
they would probably have missed this requirement, too, and then we're
just adding more bureaucracy for the sake of it.
[...]
> > Yes, it's correct that epochs cause confusion, because some bits of our
> > infrastructure drop the epoch in the filename. I submit that that is in
> > fact a bug in that bit of infrastructure; epochs are a critical part of
> > the version number, and they should not be dropped, ever.
>
> There are very good reasons why epochs are dropped in filenames. I'm
> afraid I stand by that decision.
I will readily believe that there are good reasons for dropping colons
in filenames. I'm not so sure about the epoch itself though; I'm sure it
must be possible to encode an epoch in a filename while avoiding a
colon.
Having said that, I must admit I don't know the full background on this,
and it isn't really the core of my argument, so I'll just take your word
for it.
[...]
> > But if we're going to introduce the *requirement* to ask on -devel for
> > every nitty bitty thing
>
> I can see where you are coming from with this. Can I persuade you
> that this is worthwhile in this case because enough other people care
> about it, even if you personally think it's not that big an issue ?
If I'm the only one bothered enough to speak up against this, I suppose
that'd be the outcome, yes (or it might be that other people who think
this is silly just don't care enough)
> > "Please note that introducing an epoch is an irreversible action. If
> > you're uncertain of whether the introduction of the epoch is the right
> > thing to do, it is best to ask on the debian-devel mailinglist."
>
> One of the problems with your formulation is that people who do not
> know what they are doing, do not know that they do not know what they
> are doing.
Fair enough, I suppose.
> See Dunning & Kruger's paper.
>
> (I know that "Dunning Kruger" is used as an insult, but that is ... at
> best a very loose usage. Because not knowing that you are wrong is a
> feature of being wrong, and doesn't imply stupidity.)
Honestly, hadn't even heard of that before today :-)
> How about a "should" ? I think that most people won't ignore a
> "should" unless they feel they understand why it's there.
Yeah, that works well as a compromise.
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
