[Bug 226285] Merge Review: perl-XML-Grove
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226285
--- Comment #21 from Stepan Kasal <skasal(a)redhat.com> 2008-10-14 12:16:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> But to my surprise Parag doesn't seems to be in CC.
Here is what I see in the history:
Parag was willing to do the review, but after half year of no reactions he gave
up and assigned the review back to nobody. At that time he might has added
himself to cc but he hasn't; it seems natural at that situation and I'm not
sure if he were happy if I added him to cc now.
I hope he won't mind if we finish the review without dragging him in.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Bug 226285] Merge Review: perl-XML-Grove
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226285
Stepan Kasal <skasal(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|mmaslano(a)redhat.com |pertusus(a)free.fr
--- Comment #19 from Stepan Kasal <skasal(a)redhat.com> 2008-10-14 11:57:24 EDT ---
Hello Pat,
(In reply to comment #17)
> I am indeed ready to do the review;
great! Thanks a lot. Marcela (the current asisignee) agrees, so I'm
re-assigning the bug to you.
> But I really dislike epochs too.
yep.
> # the version is against the guidelines. However adherence to
> # the guideline would imply using an epoch, which is very inconvenient.
> # Given that this package is very slowly moving, and hoping that
> # upstream skip one version to go straight to 0.47, it seems better
> # not to use an epoch. If 0.46 is ever released, the epoch way would have
> # to be used, but we are better avoiding that if possible.
>
> That seems to me to be a better argumentation ;-)
Very nice and clear, thanks. What about the following small change, though?
s/this package is very slowly moving/this package's development is stalled
since Sep 1999/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Bug 226285] Merge Review: perl-XML-Grove
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226285
--- Comment #17 from Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> 2008-10-14 08:56:43 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Hello Patrice,
>
> How would you solve this? Would you change evr to 1:0.46-0.1.alpha.fc10 ?
>
> Does this really justify the epoch increase?
> Wouldn't that confuse people:
> "oh, 0.46 finally released!"
> "Oh, wait, ... Dash!, those RH &*!% always advertise different version then
> they deliver!"
>
> But I agree to change evr that way if you do the review for me. ;-)
I am indeed ready to do the review; But I really dislike epochs
too. So I think that, even though it is against the guidelines, given
that the package seems to be very slowly moving, and with the possibility
that upstream skip one version to go straight to 0.47, for
example I think that this version is right. So I propose something along:
# the version is against the guidelines. However adherence to
# the guideline would imply using an epoch, which is very inconvenient.
# Given that this package is very slowly moving, and hoping that
# upstream skip one version to go straight to 0.47, it seems better
# not to use an epoch. If 0.46 is ever released, the epoch way would have
# to be used, but we are better avoiding that if possible.
That seems to me to be a better argumentation ;-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Bug 226285] Merge Review: perl-XML-Grove
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226285
Stepan Kasal <skasal(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |panemade(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #16 from Stepan Kasal <skasal(a)redhat.com> 2008-10-14 08:40:13 EDT ---
Hello Patrice,
(In reply to comment #13)
> About the version, the comment should pasted here so that everybody
> can see what reasononing is used.
You are right, sorry.
> ###### rpmlint error: E: invalid-version 0.46alpha
> # We use the version tag "0.46alpha" -- the traditional version number of
> # this module since Sep 1999, immutable through the ages, no matter what the
> # current Package Naming Guidelines say.
>
> which is a very poor argumentation in my opinion.
How would you solve this? Would you change evr to 1:0.46-0.1.alpha.fc10 ?
Does this really justify the epoch increase?
Wouldn't that confuse people:
"oh, 0.46 finally released!"
"Oh, wait, ... Dash!, those RH &*!% always advertise different version then
they deliver!"
But I agree to change evr that way if you do the review for me. ;-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Bug 226285] Merge Review: perl-XML-Grove
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226285
--- Comment #14 from Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> 2008-10-14 07:15:42 EDT ---
I had a quick look at the pkgdb and it looks like Stepan is the
maintainer so he definitively cannot grant the review. Marcela
seems to be co-maintainer, so this applies too.
There are also dozens of co-maintainers that are dubiously
interested in the packae, but it is not a big deal.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Bug 226285] Merge Review: perl-XML-Grove
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226285
Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |Reopened
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
CC| |pertusus(a)free.fr
Resolution|RAWHIDE |
--- Comment #13 from Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> 2008-10-14 07:12:12 EDT ---
I am quite confused by the status of this review. Who is the maintainer
and who is the reviewer?
Also it is not right to close it without letting Parag say something.
About the version, the comment should pasted here so that everybody
can see what reasononing is used. I found:
###### rpmlint error: E: invalid-version 0.46alpha
# We use the version tag "0.46alpha" -- the traditional version number of
# this module since Sep 1999, immutable through the ages, no matter what the
# current Package Naming Guidelines say.
which is a very poor argumentation in my opinion.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months