Major version upgrades - acceptable if in number only?

[Russell Golden]

I maintain mozilla-https-everywhere, and upstream is going to release
version 2.0 soon. I hope. Anyway. If 2.0's only changes are new
supported sites, would it be acceptable to push it to EPEL, or should
I just use the repo I already have on repos.fedorapeople.org? If
indeed the only change is new rulesets, backporting would make the
resulting package 1.x in name only.

Thank you.

Russell Golden
Fedora Project Contributor
[e-mail]
[phone]
--
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will
add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your
culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 20 January 2012 11:12, Russell Golden  wrote:
> I maintain mozilla-https-everywhere, and upstream is going to release
> version 2.0 soon. I hope. Anyway. If 2.0's only changes are new
> supported sites, would it be acceptable to push it to EPEL, or should
> I just use the repo I already have on repos.fedorapeople.org? If
> indeed the only change is new rulesets, backporting would make the
> resulting package 1.x in name only.

I think this would be ok.
> Thank you.
>
> Russell Golden
> Fedora Project Contributor
> [e-mail]
> [phone]
> --
> "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will
> add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your
> culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
>
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:04:18PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 20 January 2012 11:12, Russell Golden  wrote:
> > I maintain mozilla-https-everywhere, and upstream is going to release
> > version 2.0 soon. I hope. Anyway. If 2.0's only changes are new
> > supported sites, would it be acceptable to push it to EPEL, or should
> > I just use the repo I already have on repos.fedorapeople.org? If
> > indeed the only change is new rulesets, backporting would make the
> > resulting package 1.x in name only.
>
> I think this would be ok.

+1

[Christopher Meng]

Well.this is just a plugin?
If so,Ithink so.

Best Regards,
Christopher Meng------'Cicku'

My personal blog is http://cicku.me,hope you can visit and say
something about it.
More Contact info see here:http://about.me/cicku

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Toshio Kuratomi  wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:04:18PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On 20 January 2012 11:12, Russell Golden  wrote:
> > > I maintain mozilla-https-everywhere, and upstream is going to release
> > > version 2.0 soon. I hope. Anyway. If 2.0's only changes are new
> > > supported sites, would it be acceptable to push it to EPEL, or should
> > > I just use the repo I already have on repos.fedorapeople.org? If
> > > indeed the only change is new rulesets, backporting would make the
> > > resulting package 1.x in name only.
> >
> > I think this would be ok.
>
> +1
>
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

[Russell Golden]

It's a browser extension.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:53:31 -0600, Christopher Meng   
wrote:
> Well.this is just a plugin?
> If so,Ithink so.
>
> Best Regards,
> Christopher Meng------'Cicku'

[Christopher Meng]

Of course I know(I've use it for 1 years).
So I think you can update.

Best Regards,
Christopher Meng------'Cicku'

My personal blog is http://cicku.me,hope you can visit and say
something about it.
More Contact info see here:http://about.me/cicku

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Russell Golden
 wrote:
> It's a browser extension.
>
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:53:31 -0600, Christopher Meng 
> wrote:
> > Well.this is just a plugin?
> > If so,Ithink so.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Christopher Meng------'Cicku'
>
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list