Epoch 0 (was: rpms/lft/devel lft.spec,1.6,1.7)
bugs.michael at gmx.net
Thu Mar 3 15:16:33 UTC 2005
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:22:22 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> (And I'm only repeating this because you imply things about me that are
> incorrect or shortsighted.)
I don't imply anything about you, I did not even refer to you
> I hope I can still voice my opinion, even when it's not shared by you
> or the decision makers. You probably do not agree,
What's that assumption based on?
> but I consider that contributing too.
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:29:19 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> it's pointless.
> I agree with gafton, screw rpm -Fvh and let's forget about all this
> Like I said before, I don't feel strongly about it.
> but like I said - I don't have any strong feelings about it.
> rehashing the past will do no one any good and let's just stop it.
Oh, rehashing the past can be very valuable in avoiding repeating old
There has been an earlier thread about removal of Epoch zero (hint: Nov
10th), from which I quoted you above. I didn't participate in that quite
long thread. But the thread turned long because there was initial
disagreement and no mandatory action required by packagers. I now highly
recommend revisiting that thread and then to decide on the fate of
explicit Epoch zero, in an official way which is announced/documented
somewhere, so every packager will know about it.
More information about the scm-commits