[ACTION REQUIRED v4] Retiring packages for F-18

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 10:15 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> For packagers and developers of the software, the revision id portion is
> usually what we want but (as tgl pointed out) the date still comes in handy
> if upstream changes their SCM.

I don't think it does, in practice. the 0.n part covers any such
situation just fine. *any* time you build the package, you are supposed
to increment n. I don't think it's possible for a situation to exist
where a change in SCM would cause a problem for sorting. The SCM stuff
is put behind the 0.n bit for precisely this reason.

> For endusers, the date is more handy for seeing whether the package is based
> on newer or older upstream versions than the scm's hash.

That's why I suggested making the date _optional_. If the packager
reckons it's useful information, they could still include it. My point
is just that it's probably wrong nowadays to have the date as mandatory
but the revision as optional, when the opposite would seem to make more
sense.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net