"Diederik de Haas" <didi.deb...@cknow.org> writes: > On Sun Dec 1, 2024 at 1:09 PM CET, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> "Diederik de Haas" <didi.deb...@cknow.org> writes: >> >> >> In case you make more than one snapshot per day, you can append a >> >> snapshot number after the date, e.g. 0.0~git20130606.2.b00ec39-1. >> >> This should rarely be necessary. >> > >> > If a rule is proposed to Policy, then it needs to account for such a >> > situation and should therefor require an incremental number, which again >> > is needed for proper sorting/comparing. >> >> If the policy should say anything regarding multiple new upstream >> release uploads per day for a single package, I would prefer if it >> instead said "Go and work on your QA process, or take a break for one >> day to let upstream stabilize before you package it". > > If that is a regular occurrence, then I agree. > > But people make mistakes. > Or if it's a high-impact security issue, then getting *a* solution out > the door quickly is possibly preferable to waiting till you get the > perfect solution. And that can be followed up by a bit better, but still > not perfect solution, on that same day.
Sure, and I don't see the above statement disallowing that. For such a situation, you could make up a new upstream version number that is appropriate for the situation. For example, 0.0~git20230606a-1 and 0.0~git20230606b-1. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
